INTRODUCTION TO THE USA EVIL GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL SYSTEM !!
The 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, once warned his Nation: "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
The 1st President of the United States, George Washington, further warned his Nation: "It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it."
Unfortunately the American people have failed to heed either one of them as evidenced by their allowing the capitalist coup against Roosevelt to fade from their history books and the murder of Kennedy to go unanswered for.
With such a people supposedly standing behind him, one does wonder how Obama can survive with only these cowards and idiots to protect and defend him, or why he would even want to.
But, and as the great American President Abraham Lincoln once observed by saying: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
the ‘final chapter’ of this latest chapter in the ‘American Story’ is yet to be written, and maybe, just maybe, these poor souls will end up surprising us all again by willingly sacrificing themselves as individuals for the greater good of their Nation.
The cost? Most assuredly high. The bloodshed? Beyond all description and measure to be sure. But as the great American Founding Father Thomas Jefferson once warned: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Nietzsche was another who wrote about the need of tragic-heroes, revolutionary supermen: "The great men are necessary, the time in which they appear is accidental; that they almost always become masters over their age is only because they are stronger, because they are older, because for a longer time much was gathered for them." -Twilight of the Idols
"The human being who has become free and how much more the spirit who has become free spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other bourgeoise. The free man is a warrior. How is freedom measured in individuals and peoples? According to the resistance which must be overcome, according to the exertion required, to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if by "tyrants" are meant inexorable and fearful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves; the most handsome type: Julius Caesar."
And Lenin another great revolutionary who with the help of the exploited Russians overthrew their exploiters and oppressors in the Russian Revolution: "The dictatorship of the proletariat is a stubborn struggle, bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative against the forces and traditions of the old society. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the instrument of the proletarian revolution, its organ, its most important mainstay, brought into being for the purpose of, firstly, crushing the resistance of the overthrown exploiters and consolidating the achievements of the proletarian revolution, and secondly, carrying the revolution to the complete victory of socialism. Soviet power as the state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat signifies the suppression of the bourgeoisie, the smashing of the bourgeois state machine and the substitution of proletarian democracy for bourgeois democracy."
Therefore, Lenin is right in saying: "The proletarian revolution is impossible without the forcible destruction of the bourgeois state machine and the substitution for it of a new one" (see Vol. XXIII, P. 342)
The time for battle is upon them all, even if they fail to see it.
Unfortunately the American people have failed to heed either one of them as evidenced by their allowing the capitalist coup de etat against Roosevelt to fade from their history books and the murder of Kennedy to go unanswered for.
ok, that was just an introduction of how corrupt US government has been, and here is the article:
Read this article or print it if you want and share it with your family and friends who are beating the bullets economically and are confused about the solution. read this long article, it's about who our friends are and who are our real enemies in this world-crisis against the global-elites, New World Order or Imperialist capitalist rulers (However u wanna call it), it's a real great weapon for our anti-global elites revolution
http://www.frso.org/about/5congress/class.htm
Class in the U.S. and Our Strategy for Revolution
(The following document is a portion of the political program of Freedom Road Socialist Organization. It was adopted at our 5th Congress. Other parts of the program are still in the process of development.)
To change society and end oppression, we need a plan to get from where we are now to liberation - a strategy that will work. Any successful revolutionary strategy must address the fundamental issue of who are our friends and who are our enemies and explain how we will go about uniting all who can be united to end the existing order of things.
We live in an era where capitalism has reached its final stage: monopoly capitalism, also known as imperialism. Monopoly capitalism is a doomed system whose continued existence stands in the way of all social progress. Huge corporations and financial institutions are headed by a wealthy oligarchy that dominates the political and economic life of this country, blocking the path to prosperity for the vast majority. U.S. companies are closing down factories here and exporting capital around the globe, to the detriment of all but themselves.
Our ruling class (the big capitalists and their hangers-on) has built an empire that spans the earth. Like vampires, they stand at the apex of a parasitic system that makes its home on Wall Street and sucks the blood of the Main Streets in the cities of the U.S. and villages of the developing world. They live on the labor, land and natural resources of others. Neither distance nor decency is a barrier to their drive to achieve the highest possible rate of profit. The world has been divided up between the big capitalist powers, which will stop at nothing to expand their spheres of influence and control.
Within our borders the monopoly capitalists have accumulated untold wealth based on the exploitation of the multinational working class and the systematic discrimination and robbery that is visited upon the oppressed nationalities.
We need to turn things upside down. This means revolution, a radical break that advances the cause of the exploited, that employs, in the words of Malcolm X, any means necessary. Working and oppressed peoples need political power. This power is the means to reorganize society in our own interests and dictate our terms to all who stand in the way. The seizure of power by the working class and its allies is the beginning of a great change, a transformation that continues until the end of all classes and all oppression.
United Front Against Monopoly Capitalism
Our basic strategy for revolution and socialism is building a united front against the monopoly capitalist class, under the leadership of the working class and its political party, with a strategic alliance between the multinational working class and the oppressed nationalities at the core of this united front.
Identifying our real friends and our real enemies is a first step towards building a united front against monopoly capitalism. To carry out this analysis we need to understand the different classes, nationalities and social groups in U.S. society, identify those forces whose interests are in the main opposed to the monopoly capitalists, and take a look a the specific features of our society.
Of paramount importance is grasping the fact that the United States is a country where entire nationalities - African Americans, Chicanos and Latinos, Asian Americans, Native peoples including native Hawaiians, Arab Americans and others within U.S borders - are bound by the chains of national oppression. Real and full equality, liberation and self-determination become possible with the destruction of monopoly capitalism. Thus the struggle to end national oppression has a revolutionary significance. One cannot understand the U.S. past, present or future without firmly grasping this point.
Strategic Alliance
Revolutionary change in the United States will bring together two powerful currents: the struggles of oppressed nationalities for equality and liberation, and the fight of the multi-national working class to end exploitation and eliminate all oppression. Building the unity of these two forces is what we mean by building a strategic alliance. This long-term alliance is the foundation for a much broader united front of classes and social groups who can and will unite against the monopoly capitalists.
The real work to build this strategic alliance requires carrying out a set of interrelated and at times difficult tasks. White workers, especially those who are active and forward-looking, have the responsibility to take the lead in opposing white chauvinism or racism among whites and play an active role in building the fight against all manifestations of national oppression. By doing so they help build the unity and strength of the multinational working class and help create more favorable terrain for the development of the national movements.
Revolutionary minded oppressed nationality workers have the responsibly to oppose narrow nationalism among workers of their own nationality. This contributes to overcoming distrust and division between the respective nationalities, raising the fighting capacity of the multinational working class, and helps to create a situation where the national movements of African Americans, Chicanos and Latinos, Asian Americans, Native peoples and other oppressed nationalities can build the respective national movements, cooperating to achieve common goals, while building the strategic alliance.
Within the movements of the oppressed nationalities, which by definition bring together a number of classes and social groups, there is the issue of which class will lead. The stronger the working class leadership of the national movements, the stronger the national movements will be (especially in a country like the U.S., where the overwhelming majority of the oppressed nationalities are workers) and the more durable will be the alliance with the multi-national working class.
Classes in the U.S.
There is a lot of confusion about class in the United States. Politicians, academics, media pundits and even trade union leaders, have obscured the issue. As a result many think the main classes in the United States are the rich, poor and middle class. This view has problems. It pits the employed section of the working class against the unemployed sections of the working class, by suggesting that the working class is the middle class and has different interests from the unemployed sections of the working class. Another variant is to think that everyone who owns a cabin or lives in the suburbs is "rich." The effect of this kind of analysis is to pit the working class against itself, confounding friends and enemies and deadening class consciousness.
Marxists approach the matter differently, and we believe that to be a part of the working class is something to be proud of. When socialists look at the issue of class we see that every kind of society, from ancient times until now, is organized around its tools - it means of producing things that satisfy people's needs and wants. Ownership of the means of production is basic. Classes are large groups of people, who have a defined relationship to the means of production, such as ownership. They also have a defined place in the social division of labor, for example some people are supervisors or managers. The result of the these differences in who owns what and where one fits into the social division of labor, means a difference in who gets how much wealth.
The following are the principal classes in the United States. When it is stated that a given class or social group thinks or acts in a given way, it is based on the understanding that nothing is uniform and more can be learned on one hand, but that it is vital that we understand the general motion of something on the other.
Monopoly capitalists
The monopoly capitalist class is the dominant class the United States. They own and control the big corporations like Citicorp, General Motors and Wal-Mart. This class of billionaires, multimillionaires and those in their immediate circles are real rulers of the U.S.
Some of the family names in this class are familiar - they have been there for generations - such as the DuPonts and Rockefellers. Others are comparative newcomers such as the Waltons or Bill Gates. All of them are parasites that live off the labor of the working class.
This class has several specific features. First, they rule not only the United States; they control an empire that spans the globe. This means they quite literally have friends and allies on every continent. Every blow that weakens U.S. imperialism assists those of us here in fighting our common enemy.
Secondly, they control the political and cultural life of this county, from Congress and the judiciary, the media and military to institutions of education and the arts. They finance a host of institutions and think tanks that actively consider and promote their strategic interests, including the Heritage Foundation, the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, and others. They also utilize a host of business associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
They are tied - like puppet masters to their puppets - in a thousand and one ways to the main political parties - the Republicans and the Democrats. This control is maintained through a host of laws that ensure that the electoral process favors the rich, direct and indirect campaign contributions, outright bribery, cheating, and corruption, and by an army of lobbyists who are guardians of their interests on a day-to-day basis.
As a practical matter this class includes the upper stratum of politicians, military figures, and some intellectuals.
Finally, this class has shown time and time again that it will stop at nothing to maintain its power and privilege.
This class of monopoly capitalist is the principal target of revolution in the United States.
Non-monopoly capitalists
These are the capitalists who are important on a local or regional level. They include some of the smaller banking and finance groups and some of the smaller manufactures, for example in furniture building and food processing, the owners of large farms and ranches, with a larger section centered in the service sector - for example the owners of smaller restaurant chains.
This group also includes a section of large local land developers and real estate speculators, a section of well-off intellectuals, some big entertainers and cultural figures, and a section of politicians, including some big city mayors.
Their distinguishing feature is that they have not made it into the monopoly capitalist class, and they face a constant competitive pressure from the corporations with great resources. Because of that pressure they frequently attempt to compensate by obtaining higher than normal rates of exploitation, and they are often extremely hostile to trade unions and workers' rights.
While they have some independence from, and at times some are hostile to, some of the agenda advanced by the monopoly capitalists (for example, some resent paying for tax-funded projects that benefit their larger competitors and others are concerned about trade issues), as a whole this is not a progressive class. The non-monopoly capitalists are also a target of revolution in the United States.
That said, there are individuals within this class who have the potential to be favorable or at least not hostile to revolutionary change. Given the multinational character of the United States, we note there are also non-monopoly capitalists based in the oppressed nationalities, who at times are hostile to national oppression, and under favorable conditions can be brought into the united front against monopoly capitalism.
Petty Bourgeoisie
In the U.S. the petty bourgeoisie is a large and varied class that includes most professionals, like doctors and lawyers, and supervisory personnel. It encompasses the majority of intellectuals, such as college professors and scientists. It also includes the owners of small businesses that produce or sell goods and services, small farmers, and small landlords who get the majority of their income from rent.
Those who make up the petty bourgeoisie either have some specialized skill or knowledge or are owners of the means of production or distribution. As a class they value what independence they have. The upper stratum of this class hopes to join the capitalists, and lower stratum fears being pushed into the working class.
Some petty bourgeoisie get a part of their income by exploiting the labor of others, for example most restaurant owners or owners of small auto shops. Others do not, like most doctors employed by hospitals.
Based on their relationship to other classes and their income, the petty bourgeoisie can be broken down into three groups or strata: upper, middle and lower.
The upper stratum of the petty bourgeoisie has a rising standard of living. For them life is getting better. And for those in this group who produce or sell goods and services - they would like to join the ranks of the big capitalists. They live in well-to-do suburbs, condominiums and gated communities. The upper stratum includes many of those who practice law, doctors, small business owners who are doing well and hire workers, accountants, scientists, local media personalities, some landlords and others. They see themselves as the middle class and many want "government to get off their backs" or view themselves as "fiscal conservatives." This section of the people tends to be active in politics on a state and local level and at present time it is an important social base for the political right wing. Given that, some sections are more progressive than others, for example college professors.
The middle section of the petty bourgeoisie is treading water. They want to move on up, but capitalism is pulling them down. For them, things seem to be stagnating. They feel okay about their economic well-being but fear the future. This group includes a section of management and administrators, small business owners who have some employees but they still have to do some of the actual work, and small time landlords who maintain a few buildings. This group includes professionals who are not doing as well as some of their peers. They tend to own nice homes. Politically this group tends to be a mixed bag. The small business owners hate government regulation. Professionals employed by government tend to have a very different view.
The lower section of the petty bourgeoisie is a step away from the working class and many have an income that is lower than the upper or even middle sections of the working class. They own small neighborhood businesses that frequently fail. Small farmers, owner operators of trucks, some small building contractors and working supervisors with the power to fire are all part of this group. Many in this section of the petty bourgeoisie have their roots in the working class, and really like being their own boss. This section of the people frequently places demands on government, as is the case with many farm movements. They use small business loans, and are as a group hostile to big business and would like to see the power of the monopolies curbed.
Over the long run, the petty bourgeoisie as a whole has no future as a class. It cannot realistically compete with the big capitalists and there is a tendency in many of the professions towards less independence - for example the decline of small medical practices.
It is important that as many people as possible within this class be brought into the united front against monopoly capitalism. In some cases, this will be done based on the economic interests of sections of this class. For example, building farm protest movements or uniting with small storeowners to oppose a Wal-Mart in the community. In other cases work will be done by building progressive political centers in a certain profession for example, for example building the organizations of progressive lawyers.
Working Class
The working class constitutes the majority of the American people and it will be both the main and leading force for revolutionary change in this country. It is composed of women and men of all nationalities who labor to create goods and services, be it in factories, offices or the fields. It encompasses the employed and the unemployed, those who do manual labor or mental labor, people working in the service sector or manufacturing and transportation. It includes the organized and the unorganized.
The working class makes its living by selling its ability to work. The capitalists own the places and things that are used to create goods and services. They appropriate for themselves all that is produced by the collective labor of the working class. This gives rise to an irrepressible conflict, a clash of basic interests that can be solved by the working class taking all power into its own hands.
The U.S. working class has a proud history of struggle. From the fight for the 8-hour day in the 1880's to the heroic battles against concessions that have been waged over the past 20 years and the inspiring movement of undocumented workers for full equality, the capacity of the working class to take its destiny into its own hands has been repeatedly shown.
In the U.S. today the working class as a whole is characterized by a low level of class consciousness. While it's true that many workers are dissatisfied with the existing order of things, there is not a widespread understanding that the working class has a distinct set of interests that can only be addressed by the collective action of the class. In fact, while there is a widespread perception among working people that life for them and their children might well get harder, many workers, particularly the sections of the working class which are better off or more stable, either do not view themselves as a part of the working class or have hopes of leaving it altogether.
Broadly speaking, the working class can be divided into upper, middle and lower sections.
The upper sections of the working class have both the largest income and the highest social status within the class as a whole. It includes those in the skilled trades, such as electricians, plumbers, some carpenters, some tool and die makers and those who do specialized repair and maintenance. Teachers and nurses are a part of this group. It also includes a section of organized workers in basic industries such as mining, auto and steel, and some government workers.
In the building and skilled trades, this section of the working class is disproportionately white due to discrimination and national oppression. Depending on the region of the country, and whether the production facility is based in an urban or rural area, this is less true in the unionized sections of basic industry.
At times the upper section of the working class has shown itself to be extremely militant when it comes to defending its class interests.
Some parts of the upper sections of the working class are influenced by white and national chauvinism; hence, these elements at times exercise a conservative influence in the labor movement and society as a whole.
Over the past thirty years, this section of the working class has been hit hard by changes in the productive forces and the departure of factories to other countries - particularly in the basic industries. As a result, it is less of a force in the working class as a whole.
In a similar vein, some of the skilled trades have gone through a process whereby the degree of skills required has declined (machinists) or where the degree of unionization has declined (carpenters) and as a result, larger and larger sections of these professions have found themselves in the middle or lower sections of the working class.
In the private sector, this is the most organized section of the working class. This section of the working class often sees itself as a part of the "middle class," and in many ways believes that their whole way of life is disappearing.
The most important section of the upper section of the working class are those concentrated in basic industries, where there are still many large, multinational workplaces.
The middle sections of the working class include most workers in the public sector, unionized workers in light industry, transportation and communications and a large section of the office workers in finance, insurance and real estate. While public employees have a higher rate of unionization than the working class as a whole, the middle section of the working class is less organized than the upper and many tend to work under less socialized conditions.
This section of the working class is under serious pressure, and is seeing its standard of living erode. While public sector workers face real pressures, many in this section of the class are in danger of being pushed into the lower sections of the class in times of economic crisis or restructuring. This is particularly true where households have fewer resources to fall back on, for example, oppressed nationality workers who face 'last hired and first fired.'
The middle section of the class has been where most new union members have come from in the past forty years. This is partly because of the growth of the service and healthcare industries. It is also because of the motion of public sector workers into joining unions.
The civil rights movement had a large impact on the union movement among the public sector because of the significant employment of Black workers. When Martin Luther King Jr. died in Memphis, he was there supporting a strike of sanitation workers.
The requirements of organizing new members made unions change, and in turn led to struggles against the failures of the old union leadership.
Organizing new members is in the interests of the class, and in the main, organizing the unorganized has contributed to the class struggle.
The lower section of the working class is growing, labors under the most difficult conditions and is disproportionately made up of women and oppressed nationalities. It includes many who work in agriculture, retail, and the food processing industries, the less unionized sections of light industry, prison laborers, and temporary workers - especially those who do not receive benefits. Workers without jobs are a part of this section of the working class.
The employed section of this group of workers has no illusions about being part of the "middle class." As a group, homelessness is just a few lost paychecks away. Issues like health care and childcare affect the entire working class and parts of the petty bourgeoisie as well, but for the lower sections of working class their importance cannot be overstated. No childcare can well mean no job. No heath care coverage means long waits in hospital emergency rooms for basic care.
Many undocumented workers are in the lower section of the working class, and a portion of this section of the class would like to see radical change.
The urban poor is the stratum of the lower section of the working class who are without jobs or who lack stable employment. It includes people on public assistance and day laborers. The urban poor is extremely dissatisfied with conditions, and it is the only stratum of the working class that as a whole, is open to revolutionary ideas about changing society.
Lumpen Proletariat
The lumpen proletariat is made up of those who make their living primarily by criminal means, including drug dealing, street cons and theft. It is mainly made up of former members of the working class who have turned to anti-social means to get by.
While in the main it is the working class that suffers from its behavior, sections of this group can change and become allies of the working class.
Working Class Leadership and the Need for a New Communist Party
For revolutionary change to take place in the United States, three conditions need to be in place. First, the broad masses of people - workers, the oppressed nationalities and others who are held down by the monopoly capitalists - need to arrive at the conclusion that they are unable to live in the old way, and need to be willing to fight to bring the old order to an end. Second, the ruling class needs to be in real crisis, where it is divided against itself and unable to continue with business as usual. And, finally, there needs to be a strong revolutionary organization, a communist party that is capable of navigating complex political situations and that can lead the fight to establish working class political power.
In the U.S. today, none of these conditions exist. In our view, it is the central task of revolutionaries to create a new communist party - a political party that is serious about revolution in this country. Such a party cannot be proclaimed or declared into being. It will be the product of bringing together or fusing Marxism with the workers movement. In a practical sense this means that a substantial section of the activists, organizers, and leaders need to take up the science of revolution, Marxism-Leninism, in order to build a communist party, that is in fact the advanced and organized detachment of the multi-national working class. This process will be the result of an organized effort, and it cannot come about spontaneously.
Building a new revolutionary party is a long-term project that requires perseverance and determination. It is not something that can be done in isolation from the people's struggle and movements. Our party building work should be placed in the context of our three objectives: To win all that can be won while weakening our enemies; Raise the general level of consciousness, struggle, and organization in our immediate battles; and Win the advanced to Marxism-Leninism, thus building revolutionary organization.
The tasks of revolutionaries in relationship to building revolutionary organization change based on the development of the objective situation. Right now there are very few Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. While the job of uniting them is an important one, this is not key to party building. Finding new socialists in the course of the struggle is the thing to do.
It is possible that an upsurge of the national movements will lead to the creation of Marxist organizations based among a specific nationality, as happened in the late 60's and early 70's. If this takes place again, it would mean prioritizing the principled unity of communist organizations. Likewise if polarization in society due to the decline of U.S imperialism, or radicalization of a section of one or more social movements creates a layer of activists who are revolutionary minded, this in turn will affect the content of party building efforts.
Expanding the scale and scope of revolutionary organization with the long term goal of building a new communist party is closely linked with the construction of a united front against monopoly capitalism. The organizational capacity and political understanding a Marxist Leninist party provides is the vehicle for working class leadership, and the scaffolding for the united front against monopoly capitalism.
ON BUILDING A SOCIALIST UNITED FRONT: THE LUMPENPROLETARIAT AS AN IMPORTANT CLASS IN OUR UNITED SOCIALIST FRONT
http://attackthesystem.com/on-building-the-revolutionary-party-the-lumpenproletariat-as-class-vanguard/
On April 27, 2005, Andrew Mickel, a.k.a. Andy McCrae, was sentenced to death for the November 19, 2002 assassination of a Pine Bluff, California police officer in an act of insurrection against the police state and the empire of imperial state-capitalism that pulls its strings. The action in question was a classic “hit and run” guerrilla maneuver, one that Andy may well have learned during his days as a US Army Ranger. Andy is twenty-six years old, a veteran not only of the US Army but of various movements of the Left, including anti-globalization and Palestinian solidarity. He is now at San Quentin on California’s death row.
Of course, Andy is the Left’s perfect counterpart to Tim McVeigh. The similarities are certainly obvious enough. The question before us involves the relevance of individuals such as these to the struggle to come. Both the United States as a nation and the world as a whole are entering into a new political phase. For the US, the remants of the Old Republic are rapidly giving way to the peculiarly unique form of fascism represented by the neoconservative/Anglo-Zionist/Straussian cabal that has seized the apparatus of American foreign policy. For the world, the consolidation of a global superstate under an international ruling class centered in the Atlantic nations, perhaps operating in collusion with their junior partners elsewhere, has never been nearer. US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has pointed out that a motion brought before the United Nations by the US regime would effectively make revolt against any state anywhere on earth into an international crime, to be prosecuted by international courts and enforced by international police and military forces. The enactment of such a provision would essentially be the final building block in the creation of a global government, with each of the previously sovereign nations being reduced to mere provinces within the global superstate, with resistance anywhere on earth to any sort of regime being tantamount to an act of treason against the global superstate. Of course, the global superstate would in reality be a mere front for the US regime and the senior partners in its global empire (England and Israel), now having achieved complete world domination, and pursuing revolutionaries everywhere as part of its generic misnomer, the “war on terrorism”.
It is a certainty that if the US continues its current program of imperial aggression and global warfare under the cover of the ideology of revolutionary democratism, the revival of military conscription within the domestic United States will be a necessity. This will in turn be quite likely to produce a good deal more of the likes of Tim McVeigh and Andy McCrae, angry young men with military experience who turn their guns on the System. This phenomenon will also be fueled by the drastic rise in recent decades of persons prone to lethal violence of either a random or retaliatory nature (school shooters, “road rage”, “disgruntled postal workers”, etc.). Thus far, such incidents have mostly occurred independently of one another and have been directed towards random or personalized targets. However, rising political discontent fueled by an unpopular war (or series of wars), economic decline, increased repression, and an increasingly alienated and frustrated population of youth and military veterans will likely trigger not only an increase in incidents such as the forementioned but also the carrying out of such actions in ways that are more organized and with more specific political objectives. In other words, as the US continues to degenerate politically, economically and culturally to Third World levels, resistance efforts in the US will begin to mirror those of the Third World, i.e., overt armed struggle.
It is highly significant that those who have taken up arms against the state in recent years have originated from both the Left and Right, often involving similar if not identical issues, particularly police repression. The next phase in the natural evolution of this phenomenon would be a type of political coalescence of the radical Left and radical Right into a new radicalism that defies the old, stereotypical categorizations. Examing the history of radicalism, we see the rise of the industrial bourgeoise with eighteenth century classical liberalism. The Old Left, with its focus on the industrial proletariat, and the New Left, with its focus on traditional minorities and outgroups, have, like the bourgeoise before them, become a part of the status quo, of the Establishment. The contemporary Left’s incessant condemnations of “racism, sexism and homophobia” render impotent the Left’s claims of radicalism when minorities occupy high positions among the imperial overlords.
If the vanguard of the new radicalism is neither the traditional proletariat nor the traditional minorities, then who is? If both the bourgeoise of classical liberalism and the proletariat of classical socialism have been effectively incorporated into the mainstream of corporate-social democracy, what class then emerges as a revolutionary class? The peasantry, as the Maoists would insist? There is no peasantry in modern societies, though the rural underclass, as will be shown, often comes close. Instead, the obvious class vanguard of the new radicalism becomes the lumpenproletariat, what Marx called the “social scum”. We might think of the lumpenproletariat of modern societies as existing on a number of different levels. Several incidents from recent American history illustrate this. During the decade of the 1990s, three major acts of rebellion against the US ruling class transpired. The first of these was the so-called “L.A. Riots” of 1992, involving members of the urban underclass, primarily though certainly not exclusively ethnic minorities. The lumpenproletarian nature of this uprising is further illustrated by the fact that the leadership of the insurrection was often provided by urban street gangs, the closest thing to an actual infrastructure that exists in many urban underclass communities. The second such incident was the militia phenomenon, circa 1994-1998, involving members of the rural underclass, often dispossessed traditional farmers (akin to similarly dispossessed Third World peasants), and composed primarily, though not exclusively, of members of traditional, even reactionary social groupings, including religious fundamentalists, ethnic preservationists, traditional patriots, racialists, cultural conservatives, constitutionalists and populists. The hysterical reaction to the militia movement on the part of the Left establishment, who shuddered at the thought of armed rural ruffians scurrying about, once again illustrates the irreconcilable differences between the liberal cultual elite and the lumpenproletarian underclass. Indeed, much liberal hysteria over private firearms stems from an unarticulated fear of urban minorities among affluent liberals who wear their phony egalitarian credentials on their sleeves.
Lastly, we might consider the possibility of nothing less than a suburban lumpenproletariat, composed of student radicals and bohemian, countercultural and rebellious youth of the type who populated the anti-globalization movement that came to prominence during the famed “Battle of Seattle” in 1999. It is these three sectors of the lumpenproletariat, certainly distinctive from one another, drawn from across conventional geographical, cultural, ethnic, religious, ideological or even class boundaries, that form the foundation of the new class struggle, the new radicalism to come. The next logical step in the evolution of this new radicalism would be the emergence of intellectual and political leadership within each of these sectors that collectively understands the necessity of combined efforts among the various subsets of the lumpenproletariat against the common class enemy, i.e., state-capitalism. The primary divisions among the lumpenproletarian class are cultural in nature. This necessitates an authentically multi-cultural approach to the class struggle. Not a monocultural totalitarianism of the type offered by much of the fake “multiculturalism” of the modern Left, but a genuine multiculturalism that actually allows for real and distinct differences in cultural identity, even those that are in conflict with one another. This will necessitate that those in leadership positions be of sufficient caliber as to be able to reach across cultural boundaries for the sake of constructing effective revolutionary coalitions. As militant resistance builds, armed actions against the System will evolve from the level of isolated individuals attacking random targets to the level of organized groupings carrying out authentic military/guerrilla actions within the context of a more coherent strategic agenda. It is the nature of both war and politics that shifting tactical alliances form as new enemies arise. One need only to think of the alliance of the ultra-capitalist United States and the ultra-Marxist Soviet Union or the Aryanist Germans and the decidedly non-Aryan Japanese during the Second World War.
During the early phase of the domestic armed struggle, the insurgent forces will originate on the Right from the ranks of the militiamen, survivalists, common law advocates, sovereigns, neo-secessionists, radical Christian separatists, jural societies, “pro-life terrorists”, tax resisters and, of course, the entire umbrella of white supremacists/separatists/nationalists. On the Left, the insurgent forces will originate from among the anarchists, communists, ethnic minority separatist/nationalists, radical environmentalists and “animal rights terrorists”. At some point, formal outlaw organizations may also become involved. Joint actions by all of these forces against the common enemy, the System, would put the System on the defensive as the overlords of the New World Order found themselves under attack from all sides, both domestically and internationally. An effective military struggle can serve as a foundation for an effective political struggle. An initial step in this direction might involve a common pact among the insurgent forces to support one another’s fugitives and prisoners, regardless of ideology. This would in turn create the foundation for mutual collaboration both inside and outside the state’s gulags, and between politicized lumpenproletarian and conventional underworld lumpenproletarian elements. As the political struggle evolved, newer, less armed struggle-oriented elements would begin to formally join the ranks of the resistance, for example, libertarians and paleoconservatives from the Right or Greens and Socialists from the Left.
Up to this point, the political resistance would largely be limited to issues-prisoner support, resistance to repression, anti-imperialism, etc. However, at some point it would be necessary to create a formal political party drawn from the disparate revolutionary ranks. Several prototypes for this kind of effort exist. From American history, there is the convergence of a number of minor parties to form the Republican Party prior to the US Civil War. From anarchist history, there is the anarchist-led Revolutionary Front of 1930s France, a coalition of radical groups (anarchists, Trotsksyists, socialists, cooperativists, unionists) united against both the Fascist and Stalinist enemy. Perhaps the most interesting example of this type from the contemporary world is the National-Bolshevik Party of Russia, which maintains an curious mixture of socialist, nationalist and anarchist ideology and symbolism, but acts largely as an underground opposition party in defense of civil liberty and ethnic minorities against the state, with a strong orientation towards youth.
The battle lines in the international struggle against the New World Order are essentially drawn to pit the forces of state-capitalism and monocultural universalism against the insurgent forces of lumpenproletarianism and multi-cultural, or cross-cultural, particularism. International class solidarity among the lumpenproletariat will require a strategic outlook that is capable of accommodating the immense diversity that exists within the class. The traditional Leftist approach of proclaiming that “the workers have no country” is inadequate, as demonstrated by the way workers rallied to their respective national causes during the First World War, with the working classes of the contending nations pitted against one another on the battlefield. Nor is the contemporary Leftist insistence on glorifying select Official Minorities and denigrating disfavored groups (”straight white Christian males”) sufficient. Instead, the ideological superstructure of the lumpenproletarian class must take into account the persistent national, cultural, ethnic and religious loyalties to be found among substantial sectors of our people, as well as the divergence of opinion among our class concerning matters of gender, sexuality, controversial social questions of virtually every type, personal lifestyle interests and so on.
On the national question, the most effective ideological framework would likely be to proclaim individual nations to be in revolt against the imperial system of the New World Order, a type of national revolutionism. This should by no means be confused with old-fashioned nationalism of the conservative variety, which typically tends toward chauvinism and glorification of the state. Instead, the new radicals should emphasize solidarity with other nations in the common struggle against the common enemy. Also, the states and ruling classes within each nation should be denounced as traitors to their respective countries and national causes. While the new revolutionaries would depict themselves as patriots defending their countries against the imperial overlords, they would simultaneously attack their respective governments and state-capitalist elites for their lack of patriotic virtue. This should be done in such a way as to appeal to the traditional culture, history, myths and symbolism of each respective nation. Within this theoretical amalgam, the struggle for the nation simultaneously becomes a war against the state and the corporate classes. Within each nation, the New World Order is met with opposition from both the far Left and the far Right. The next logical step would be the creation of tactical alliances between the two for the purpose of attacking the common enemy, the center-left and center-right NWO elites. Eventually, the far Left/far Right coalition will be joined by the radical Center, the alienated masses likely to be attracted to populist-nationalist, libertarian-socialist rhetoric and programmatic paradigms generated by the revolutionaries. The cultural differences between the far Left and far Right can be worked around through implementation of a cease-fire concerning these matters, and the subsequent development of institutional systems capable of accommodating everyone’s interests to some degree. Such arrangements would naturally involve prioritizing the venerable traditional anarchist and libertarian ideals of decentralism, federalism, voluntarism and mutualism. For example, on the immensely controversial question of immigration, authority on this matter could be devolved to the provincial, regional or community level, with “left-wing” communities allowed unlimited immigration and “right-wing” communities allowing zero immigration. A similar approach could be adopted on the matters of abortion, gun laws, drug laws, the welfare state, “gay marriage” and many other things.
Each particular nation usually contains within itself numerous, distinctive regions and localities, each with their own myths, histories and cultural identities. A decentralized organizational structure for the revolutionary party would allow the revolutionaries in each particular community to best ulitilize the cultural flavor of that community, in addition to creating the means to achieve harmony among otherwise incompatible cultural elements within the lumpenproletarian class and within the context of the broader populist revolutionary struggle that transcends class boundaries. Indeed, the classical anarchist labor movement of the pre-World War One era was often organized in such a way, with distinctive American anarchist groups often existing for Germans, Italians, Jews, and other ethnic populations. How might a similar approach be adopted for the modern revolutionary struggle? First, anarchists need to abandon their current positioning of themselves as simply another branch of reactionary liberalism. It is not enough to simply denounce “racism, sexism and homophobia”, pollution and animal cruelty. To do this, we can join the Democratic Party. Instead, anarchists must position themselves as the intellectual and activist vanguard of the New Radicalism, the ubermenschen, or aristocratic cultural elite of the insurgency. The present day cultural elite remains deeply attached to reactionary liberalism, and has therefore expired its historical utility. Consequently, it is time to give them the boot. Instead, the function of the anarchists as the revolutionary vanguard of the New Radicalism is to pull together the disparate elements of the lumpenproletarian class and to “whip into shape” the broader array of resistance forces on an international scale.
Initially, the natural allies of the anarchists are the various separatist movements of either a territorial, cultural, ethnic or religious nature, each of whom seeks independence and sovereignty from the existing nation-state. Within the United States and its immediate territories, these include independence movements in New England, Texas, California, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the former Confederate states, Vermont and others, along with various local independence movements among cities and towns, ethnic separatists such as the Nation of Islam, Aztlan Nation and Christian Identity, religious separatists such as the Christian Exodus movement and the Christian Jural Societies, cultural or ideological separatists like the Green Panthers or Free State Project, and on and on. A positive working relationship between the anarchists and the leadership of each of these tendencies would be the first step toward the realization of a political coalition against the common ruling class enemy. We might think of the structure of such a movement as a pyramid where anarchists are at the top as the intellectual and activist vanguard, operating as “mediating coordinators” of a broader radical coalition of disparate anti-System elements. It would then be the function of each of the separatist tendencies to rally their own rank and file in the common struggle. Particularly advantageous would be the respect commanded by the various ethnic leaders among overtly lumpenproletarian elements, such as street gangs, prison gangs, motorcycle clubs and so on. Indeed, it was elements of this type that were often among the earliest recruits into the revolutionary militia tendencies of the 1960s, such as the Black Panthers, Brown Berets, Young Lords and others.
Once such a radical coalition was firmly established, the next step would be entry into a larger organization with the aim of conquest of its leadership. The best targets would be one or more of the larger “minor” parties. For example, a simultaneous colonization effort of the Green, Constitution, Socialist and Libertarian parties by proponents of the New Radicalism, and the resulting conversion of each of these parties into vehicles for the new radicals, would create the opportunity for a federation of dissident parties combining the internal resources of each. From this point, numerous constituent groups could be cultivated, everything from homeschoolers and firearms enthusiasts on the Right to advocates of medical marijuana on the Left. A decentralized infrastructure for the Revolutionary Party would allow party activists to orient their propaganda and recruiting efforts towards their respective local cultures. In “red” areas, the New Radicalism might adopt the accoutrements of right-wing populism. In “blue” areas, the adornment of left-wing populism. The inner circle of activists and revolutionary leaders would coordinate their activities on a national scale, but with each group of these focused on their own respective communities. Many anarchists will no doubt look askance at the idea of a formal party formation. However, I believe this approach is necessary given the nature of modern states. At the time of the classical anarchist movement, most states were monarchies rather than democracies, with only America, Switzerland, France and, partially, England and Holland, falling into the latter category. While I agree with critics of mass democracy on the question of this type of regime’s proclivities toward tyranny, it is also true that electoral action is of a somewhat greater, if still limited, viability in the present era. Therefore, the Revolutionary Party should be comprised of a political as well as military and economic arm, with the principle aim of electoral action being the election of secessionist regimes to local and regional offices, with these in turn reflecting local culture.
The foremost ideological obstacle to such an effort is the orientation of much of the conventional Left and Right alike towards ideological universalism, the idea that one particular political, cultural or philosophical system must prevail on universal scale. Much of this can no doubt be overcome on the Right, given the Right’s traditional provinicialism, parochialism and nativism. However, the utopian-egalitarian-humanist universalism of the Left is more problematical. I am consistently amazed at the number of leftoids who dismiss my own position as “fascist” even though, in all of my published writings, I am persistently anti-statist, anti-totalitarian, anti-imperialist, reject racial supremacist ideologies and consistently defend pluralism and decentralism. Yet much of the Left, including its so-called “anarchist” wing, persists in hurling the “fascist” epithet in my direction. I can only conclude that the mainstream of the Left, including the “anarchist” contingent, are simply totalitarians intent on erecting an authoritarian cultural Marxist state. We would do well to guard against these in the future. I predict that at some point in the future there will be a major split on the Left between the egalitarian-humanist-universalist wing and the radical post-modernist/radical multicultural/cultural relativist/overtly Third Worldist wing, as these two are obviously incompatible with one another. For example, it makes little sense to demand the universalization of left-wing cultural values like secularism and feminism while championing overtly patriarchal, typically religious Third World or ethnic minority cultures. Most likely, the cultural universalists will eventually join the Establishment, as their ideology is not fundamentally different from the revolutionary global democratism of the neoconservatives. In the US, the cultural Marxist-neocon alliance, currently symbolized by the likes of Christopher Hitchens, will come about through the neocons granting the cultural Marxists everything they want in the social realm (expanded affirmative action, the continued legality of late-term abortion, same-sex marriage) in exchange for the Left’s signing on to the neocon’s foreign policy agenda, a not-too-difficult marriage, really. Meanwhile, the cultural relativist Left may well drift towards the “beyond left and right” camp and eventually find they have much in common with the Third Position, European New Right, national-anarchists, etc.
In analyzing what went wrong with the modern Left, we have to look as far back as World War One. Previous waves of radicalism, whether classical liberalism or classical socialism, were class-based, with classical liberalism oriented towards the industrial bourgeoise and classical socialism oriented towards the industrial proletariat. During “The Great War”, the abandonment of the international class struggle by the working classes in favor of their respective nations threw Marxist theory into turmoil. Out of this came two new tendencies. One was Fascism, which shifted the focus from one’s class to one’s nation as the focus of the struggle against international capital. The other was the intellectual ancestor of the New Left, the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School, which argued that radicals must first capture the cultural institutions as a prelude to Socialist revolution, so as to inculcate workers with the proper level of revolutionary consciousness. Hence, the Left’s shift in focus from the working class to racial minorities, feminists, homosexuals and other groups viewed as potential allies against mainstream culture. A leading theorist of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse, was the intellectual godfather of the student rebellions of the late 1960s, which largely mark the beginnings of the contemporary identitarian Left as an actual movement. Additionally, two other factors come into play when tracing the roots of the modern Left. One was the failure of Communism and Socialism to produce an egalitiarian utopia of unlimited liberty and abundance. While early Socialists like Fourier fantasized about a world where lemonade would run in rivers, real-world socialism, even in its Western non-Communist form, produced little more than a new managerial bureaucracy of the type described by Max Nomad, Lawrence Dennis, James Burnham, George Orwell and others. As a result, the New Left drifted away from proletarianism towards vaguer ideas like “participatory democracy”.
The last factor involved in the Left’s drift away from class-based politics was the backlash against Fascism and National Socialism, and the racialist or nationalist content of these. The Holocaust no doubt had a traumatizing effect on the mostly Jewish leaders of the New Left. Additionally, the racial upheavals in the US during the 1960s, and the ongoing conflict between the US and Third World “people of color” in Vietnam and elsewhere, provided additional ingredients to a new ideological stew that amounted to a full abandonment by the Left of class struggle in favor of a type of racial/cultural revolutionism that in many ways was the mirror image of the classical Fascism that it was a reaction against. Nothing could be more destructive of class struggle itself. What have been the fruits of the New Left’s embrace of identity politics? The cooptation of the bourgeoise elements within these factions by the corporate establishment against labor and the poor and the emergence of pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-affirmative action corporate politicians like Bill Clinton, Albert Gore and John Kerry as the alleged leadership of the “Left”. In other words, the identitarian Left has actually been a subversive force within the class struggle, playing right into the “divide and conquer” strategy of the bourgeoise. In recent years, there has been some realization of this on the Left, as evidenced by Howard Dean’s pathetic remarks about “God, Guns and Gays” dominating the politics of the white working class in the South, and the analysis put forth by Thomas Frank’s recent work. Predictabilty, the minority of the Left that is aware of this problem responds by condescendingly insisting that the full body of the working class simply become good cultural Leftists. However, a better approach is simply the re-establishment of a class-based radicalism, focused on the lumpenproletariat as the new ascendent class, organized in such a way as to accommodate the wide cultural diversity within the class. Indeed, the emergence of such a movement would expose the Left establishment for what it is, a new brand of totalitarianism, and in the process push the vested interests of the US ruling class closer together.
One can only imagine what the reaction of the bourgeois academics, social service bureaucrats, litigation attorneys, liberal politicians, professional “anti-hate” charlatans and other sordid riff-raff who comprise the Left establishment would be if an authentically revolutionary movement were to emerge. A radical, revolutionary party that favored boycotting federal elections and instead focused on organizing separatist movements at the local level. A party that was decentralized in its internal structures, allowing for a left-populist approach in some communities, a right-populist approach in others, an overtly libertarian approach in still others. Such a party could reflect the values of the contemporary Constitution Party in “red” areas and the contemporary Green Party in “blue” areas. A party that maintained a private confederation of militia, paramilitary and guerrilla forces drawn from the ranks of street gangs, ex-convicts and ethnic minority nationalists in the cities, militiamen, survivalists and disaffected veterans in the rural areas and heartlands, and rebellious or disaffected youth in the suburbs, high schools and universities (perhaps modeled on something like Mao’s Red Guards). Left-liberal hypocrites would be shitting in their pants if such a phenomenon emerged. Call it the new radicalism, anarcho-populism, third-positionism, national-anarchism, paleo-anarchism or neo-classical anarchism, whatever you will, such an insurgency would mark the greatest moments in class struggle since the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist uprising of 1936 and the most dramatic event in US history since the Union/Confederacy showdown of 1861. Ironically, we would be utilizing the methods of the early Republicans, formation of an alliance of minor parties for the sake of a revolutionary ideological outlook, in order to achieve objectives similar to those of the Confederates: decentralization and local sovereignty in the face of creeping statism and imperialism. Can the regime be defeated? Of course it can. If the regime can be defeated in the mountains of Afghanistan, it can be defeated in the Ozark Mountains. If the regime can be defeated in the streets of Baghdad, it can be defeated in the streets of New York and Los Angeles. Let’s do it!
Stop reading conspiracy-theory websites such as Infowars.com, and Rense.com. Only socialism can get us out of this hell we are all trapped in.
Let other people you know learn about socialism! Spread the word... the more people who know the truth, the greater the force against the capitalist system! Resistance forever!
Here are a good links toward the introduction of socialist ideology (The only solution for the United States):
http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
http://www.stopaipac.org/
http://www.vheadline.com/
http://www.constitution.org/
http://www.socialistworker.org/
http://www.workers.org/
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
http://www.trotsky.net/
http://www.marxists.org/
http://www.socialistaction.org/
http://www.marxist.com/
http://www.wsws.org/
http://www.socialistalternative.org/
http://www.permanent-revolution.org/
http://www.bobavakian.net/
http://www.rwor.org/
.
......................./´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............
STICK UP YOUR MIDDLE FINGER TO US AND ISRA-HELL IMPERIALISM AND CAPITALIST OPPRESSION !!