Why We are Participating in the WCW Campaign

[Martin Blank]

The following statement was distributed at the September 24 antiwar demonstration in Washington, D.C., and subsequently in locations where both organizations are participating in this campaign.


Why We are Participating in the ‘World Can’t Wait’ Campaign
Joint Statement of the Detroit Working People’s Association and the Communist League

When the neoconservative regime of George W. Bush seized political power at the end of 2000, it signaled the opening of a new period of capitalist development.

At the time, few self-described socialists or communists recognized the implications of this attack on the formal democratic “norms” of American society. Those who did see these changes were called opportunistic and were accused to attempting to “cover” for the Democratic Party.

But the events of the last four years — from the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, to the invasion and occupation of Iraq; from the passage of the USA-PATRIOT Act to the creation of a secret police force accountable only to Bush — have shown that the Bush regime is no “tempest in a teacup.”

On the other hand, the movement opposing the actions of the Bush regime has been little more than a mild nuisance. All of the marches and protests that have taken place since 2001 have been limited, lackluster and little more than moral grandstanding. These protests have been allowed because they do not represent any kind of threat to the regime or the system it defends.

We believe bolder steps are necessary in order to begin to effectively fight against the corporatist Bush regime. This is why we are participating in the “World Can’t Wait” campaign; we believe it could become one of these bolder steps.

The “World Can’t Wait” campaign was initiated in part by the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, a Maoist organization. Under other circumstances, that fact might be seen as a deterrent by some. After all, the RCP’s overall political orientation is not one that we believe meshes well with the struggle for democratic renewal.

However, in times of great change and upheaval, like the one we are living through today, the weight of the outstanding tasks facing working and oppressed people are such that they will force individuals and organizations — even those with a partial or indirect connection to the exploited and oppressed — to do things that are not necessarily in their nature.

This is our understanding of why the RCP has helped to initiate this call. Regardless of this, though, we appreciate their efforts and initiative and give credit where it is due.

At the same time, however, we participate in the “World Can’t Wait” campaign on the basis of our own program and platform. We have fundamental disagreements with the RCP on several key questions of relevance to working people, including the central place they must play in both democratic and revolutionary movements.

We also have genuine concerns about the fate of this movement if it is not able to grow beyond being a project almost solely of the RCP. Specifically, we are concerned that there is a section of this movement that would be willing to capitulate to liberal pressure and turn the effort to “drive out the Bush regime” into a campaign to usher in a Democratic Party politician in his place.

While we direct our fire at our immediate threat — the corporatist Bush regime — we do not excuse the Democrats’ role as apologists and a crutch for corporatism.

We remember that it was the clique of Democratic Senators that excused the massive disenfranchisement of African Americans in Florida in 2000 by refusing to challenge that state’s electoral votes.

We remember that almost every Democratic Representative and Senator voted for the USA-PATRIOT Act and other similar “anti-terrorist” legislation.

We remember that Democrats joined hands with Republicans to give Bush a “blank check” for war, and approved the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

We remember that the Democrats’ disagreement with the Bush regime over issues like tax cuts for the rich — and the subsequent shifting of the tax burden onto the backs of working people — are over their form, not their content.

Therefore, our participation in the “World Can’t Wait” campaign, while concentrating on the immediate threat from the Bush regime, is aimed at the whole of the capitalist system and its “good cop, bad cop” capitalist parties. There can be no real peace, no real freedom and no real democracy unless capitalism and its agents are driven out of power.

If you agree with that the people of the world — especially the working people of the world — cannot wait any longer, and that the Bush regime must go, then join us on November 2 in nationwide protest. If you also agree with us that the only road to democracy, peace and liberation is though the ouster of the entire capitalist system, then we encourage you to talk with us and join us in building a revolutionary movement for working people’s liberation.

September 21, 2005

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague@Oct 1 2005, 10:05 AM
The following statement was distributed at the September 24 antiwar demonstration in Washington, D.C., and subsequently in locations where both organizations are participating in this campaign.


Why We are Participating in the ‘World Can’t Wait’ Campaign
Joint Statement of the Detroit Working People’s Association and the Communist League

When the neoconservative regime of George W. Bush seized political power at the end of 2000, it signaled the opening of a new period of capitalist development.

At the time, few self-described socialists or communists recognized the implications of this attack on the formal democratic “norms” of American society. Those who did see these changes were called opportunistic and were accused to attempting to “cover” for the Democratic Party.

But the events of the last four years — from the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, to the invasion and occupation of Iraq; from the passage of the USA-PATRIOT Act to the creation of a secret police force accountable only to Bush — have shown that the Bush regime is no “tempest in a teacup.”

On the other hand, the movement opposing the actions of the Bush regime has been little more than a mild nuisance. All of the marches and protests that have taken place since 2001 have been limited, lackluster and little more than moral grandstanding. These protests have been allowed because they do not represent any kind of threat to the regime or the system it defends.

We believe bolder steps are necessary in order to begin to effectively fight against the corporatist Bush regime. This is why we are participating in the “World Can’t Wait” campaign; we believe it could become one of these bolder steps.

The “World Can’t Wait” campaign was initiated in part by the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, a Maoist organization. Under other circumstances, that fact might be seen as a deterrent by some. After all, the RCP’s overall political orientation is not one that we believe meshes well with the struggle for democratic renewal.

However, in times of great change and upheaval, like the one we are living through today, the weight of the outstanding tasks facing working and oppressed people are such that they will force individuals and organizations — even those with a partial or indirect connection to the exploited and oppressed — to do things that are not necessarily in their nature.

This is our understanding of why the RCP has helped to initiate this call. Regardless of this, though, we appreciate their efforts and initiative and give credit where it is due.

At the same time, however, we participate in the “World Can’t Wait” campaign on the basis of our own program and platform. We have fundamental disagreements with the RCP on several key questions of relevance to working people, including the central place they must play in both democratic and revolutionary movements.

We also have genuine concerns about the fate of this movement if it is not able to grow beyond being a project almost solely of the RCP. Specifically, we are concerned that there is a section of this movement that would be willing to capitulate to liberal pressure and turn the effort to “drive out the Bush regime” into a campaign to usher in a Democratic Party politician in his place.

While we direct our fire at our immediate threat — the corporatist Bush regime — we do not excuse the Democrats’ role as apologists and a crutch for corporatism.

We remember that it was the clique of Democratic Senators that excused the massive disenfranchisement of African Americans in Florida in 2000 by refusing to challenge that state’s electoral votes.

We remember that almost every Democratic Representative and Senator voted for the USA-PATRIOT Act and other similar “anti-terrorist” legislation.

We remember that Democrats joined hands with Republicans to give Bush a “blank check” for war, and approved the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

We remember that the Democrats’ disagreement with the Bush regime over issues like tax cuts for the rich — and the subsequent shifting of the tax burden onto the backs of working people — are over their form, not their content.

Therefore, our participation in the “World Can’t Wait” campaign, while concentrating on the immediate threat from the Bush regime, is aimed at the whole of the capitalist system and its “good cop, bad cop” capitalist parties. There can be no real peace, no real freedom and no real democracy unless capitalism and its agents are driven out of power.

If you agree with that the people of the world — especially the working people of the world — cannot wait any longer, and that the Bush regime must go, then join us on November 2 in nationwide protest. If you also agree with us that the only road to democracy, peace and liberation is though the ouster of the entire capitalist system, then we encourage you to talk with us and join us in building a revolutionary movement for working people’s liberation.

September 21, 2005

Good read. I hope my liberal-bourgeois brother who was at the protest got one of these.

[bcbm]

How is this November 2nd protest going to be any different from the September 24 one?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by black banner black gun@Oct 3 2005, 12:08 AM
How is this November 2nd protest going to be any different from the September 24 one?

The Sept. 24 protests were specifically against the war in Iraq, on which everyone more or less agreed. But the question of the Bush regime was disputed: some favored waiting until 2008; some favored impeachment; some favored something along the lines of the WCW campaign; and, finally, some favored a non-specific overthrow. The Nov. 2 protests will be around the specific need for the immediate ouster of the Bush regime because of everything they have done -- not just the war, but the PATRIOT Act, the "class warfare", etc.

Miles

[bcbm]

To be replaced with what?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by black banner black gun@Oct 3 2005, 01:43 AM
To be replaced with what?

The RCP is not very clear on that, but we are. We favor the ouster of the Bush regime and its replacement with a revolutionary Provisional Government that facilitates the establishment of a working people's republic.

Miles

[Severian]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague@Oct 1 2005, 08:05 AM
When the neoconservative regime of George W. Bush

Neither Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell nor Rice is a neoconservative. Wolfowitz and Feith are; but they've both left their posts in the administration. So we're left with a "neoconservative regime" with no actual neoconservatives prominent in it.

Basically the overuse of this "neoconservative" buzzword comes from the radical, quasi-fascist right, which blames the Iraq war on a cabal of Jewish, ex-leftist neoconservatives hijacking U.S. foreign policy in the interests of Israel. The Buchananite website antiwar.com examplified this trend. All kinds of liberals and leftists are influenced by this ultraright opposition to the Bush administration without realizing it, and the overuse of "neoconservative" is one symptom of it. E
More details even more

ven if that's not the case here, "neoconservative" is at best obviously inaccurate for a description of the Bush administration. Ironically, this description is often combined with a claim the Bush administration is dominated by Pat Robertson-style fundamentalists, who are definitely not neoconservative.

At the time, few self-described socialists or communists recognized the implications of this attack on the formal democratic “norms” of American society.

On the contrary. I distinctly remember most "self-described" socialist or communist groups protesting a Bush "coup". This included the ISO, for example, who had backed Nader during the election campaign and then Gore during the recount battle. The "Communist League" is fully in tune with the current prevailing mood on the left, most of which talks about a "Bush regime", implies Schwarzenegger is a fascist - apparently because of his German-sounding accent - etc.

On the other hand, the rest of the U.S. population didn't seem to notice the supposed "coup" and demise of bourgeois democracy. Lemme suggest that when that in fact happens, nobody will miss it. Except maybe those who've been crying wolf for years.

But the events of the last four years — from the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, to the invasion and occupation of Iraq; from the passage of the USA-PATRIOT Act to the creation of a secret police force accountable only to Bush — have shown that the Bush regime is no “tempest in a teacup.”

Umm...what do these have to do with the 2000 elections, let alone confirmation of your view of the "Bush regime"? Do you imagine al-Qaeda carried out the Sept.11 attacks to avenge the death of U.S. democracy, or is that reference just a conspiracy theory? Has it escaped your notice that "regime change" in Iraq has been a stated objective of U.S. foreign policy since 1991, and that all means short of invasion had failed them? That the USA PATRIOT act was bipartisan - almost unanimous - and built on Clinton administration legislation? And which new secret police force are you referring to?

Now more than ever, communists should be explaining that all the wars and repression are carried out by the whole of big business and both - heck, all - its parties. Not contributing to liberal illusions that the problem is merely Bush and those around him.

These protests have been allowed because they do not represent any kind of threat to the regime or the system it defends.

Well, there's truth in that....in a sense that's why bourgoies democracy persists, because resistance to the bosses has not reached the point where more blatant repression is needed. (The other side to it, though, is that setting up a more repressive form of rule would not be easy or safe; there would be major resistance if that in fact was going on.)

But then, your whole argument rests on claiming that bourgeois democracy has been abrogated by a "seizure of power"!

While we direct our fire at our immediate threat — the corporatist Bush regime — we do not excuse the Democrats’ role as apologists and a crutch for corporatism.

Then what exactly have you been doing in the rest of this statement?

And if by "corporatism" you mean the rule of corporations...then the Democrats are not apologists or a crutch for corporatism, they are corporatists. Sometimes even more blatantly than the Republicans.

Remember the recent Supreme Court decision allowing the eminent domain seizure of small private property - including workers' homes - for corporate development? It was supported by the liberal and moderate judges John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter and Anthony Kennedy. It was opposed by....Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. They wrote in their dissent that the liberal-moderate majority had favored those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

So right there, even in your "disclaimer" sentence, you build illusions in the Democrats, that they're not "corporatists" but merely soft on "corporatism".

We remember that it was the clique of Democratic Senators that excused the massive disenfranchisement of African Americans in Florida in 2000 by refusing to challenge that state’s electoral votes.

We remember that almost every Democratic Representative and Senator voted for the USA-PATRIOT Act and other similar “anti-terrorist” legislation.

We remember that Democrats joined hands with Republicans to give Bush a “blank check” for war, and approved the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

We remember that the Democrats’ disagreement with the Bush regime over issues like tax cuts for the rich — and the subsequent shifting of the tax burden onto the backs of working people — are over their form, not their content.

And yet somehow you forget all that things when it comes time to pretend all these things are due to the 2000 "seizure of power" by Bush...and not due to, say, the upper class' drive to raise its profit rates and restabilize its system.

We favor the ouster of the Bush regime and its replacement with a revolutionary Provisional Government that facilitates the establishment of a working people's republic.

Yeah, you can favor anything you want. Good intentions.

Frankly, the CPUSA has a more realistic approach to the same perceived problem of ensuring Bush's "regime" is removed along with him. To paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis: If you're going to be a reformist, be a reformist!

[workersunity]

im glad that was cleared up, because i find impeachment useless when its gonna be taken up by another cappie, and prolly would have more restrictions on civil rights, So generally its a protest against capitalism, specifically against the Bush Regime

[workersunity]

is there info anywhere on this protest miles?

[Martin Blank]

A word of advice, Severian: The next time you want to embarrass yourself, try something simpler and easier -- like trying out for American Idol or something.

Originally posted by Severian+Oct 3 2005, 08:05 AM--> (Severian @ Oct 3 2005, 08:05 AM)Neither Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell nor Rice is a neoconservative. Wolfowitz and Feith are; but they've both left their posts in the administration. So we're left with a "neoconservative regime" with no actual neoconservatives prominent in it.[/b]

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are all supporters of the Project for a New American Century, the chief neoconservative thinktank. Powell is out of the Bush regime (did you know that?). The adoption of the "National Security Strategy" document by the Bush regime enshrined this neoconservative, corporatist doctrine.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
Basically the overuse of this "neoconservative" buzzword comes from the radical, quasi-fascist right, which blames the Iraq war on a cabal of Jewish, ex-leftist neoconservatives hijacking U.S. foreign policy in the interests of Israel. The Buchananite website antiwar.com examplified this trend. All kinds of liberals and leftists are influenced by this ultraright opposition to the Bush administration without realizing it, and the overuse of "neoconservative" is one symptom of it.
More details even more

What drivel! So, anyone who uses the term "neoconservative" is "influenced by [the] ultraright"? Riiiiight. Honestly, you have a nerve trying to argue against anyone about this issue, since you support the only "left" organization that supported the Bush coup in 2000. Even slander should make some sense.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
Even if that's not the case here, "neoconservative" is at best obviously inaccurate for a description of the Bush administration. Ironically, this description is often combined with a claim the Bush administration is dominated by Pat Robertson-style fundamentalists, who are definitely not neoconservative.

We prefer to use the term corporatist, but we have no problem also using neoconservative, since, in the current climate, the two terms are becoming synonymous. If this argument was coming from anyone else, I would think it a matter of semantics. But, since it's from Severian, it's clearly a matter of trying to tar a political opponent with slander and lies.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
On the contrary. I distinctly remember most "self-described" socialist or communist groups protesting a Bush "coup". This included the ISO, for example, who had backed Nader during the election campaign and then Gore during the recount battle. The "Communist League" is fully in tune with the current prevailing mood on the left, most of which talks about a "Bush regime", implies Schwarzenegger is a fascist - apparently because of his German-sounding accent - etc.

You remember incorrectly. Saying something in your newspaper and actually doing something are two different things. The ISO wrote things in their paper, but did not get involved in many of the actions that took place in November and December 2000 -- and they certainly did not do it only any kind of concrete political basis. Most organizations, though, did not do a damn thing, echoing Nader's comments about it being a "tempest in a teacup" ... just like you're doing.

I can understand why you don't see the difference between these approaches, given your political affiliations. After all, there is a reason why the publication of your preferred sect is derisively called The Dilettante.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
On the other hand, the rest of the U.S. population didn't seem to notice the supposed "coup" and demise of bourgeois democracy. Lemme suggest that when that in fact happens, nobody will miss it. Except maybe those who've been crying wolf for years.

African American workers certainly did "seem to notice" what happened. But then, I'm sure their view doesn't matter to you at all. They're just "influenced by [the] ultraright", right?

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
Umm...what do these have to do with the 2000 elections, let alone confirmation of your view of the "Bush regime"? Do you imagine al-Qaeda carried out the Sept.11 attacks to avenge the death of U.S. democracy, or is that reference just a conspiracy theory?

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, opened the road for the U.S. bourgeoisie to wage an endless war against its enemies: its imperialist rivals (mainly Europe) and the U.S. working class. That is what "9/11" has to do with it. So much for the "long view of history"!

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
Has it escaped your notice that "regime change" in Iraq has been a stated objective of U.S. foreign policy since 1991, and that all means short of invasion had failed them?

"Regime change" was not a stated objective until the passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which was practically authored by PNAC and shepherded through Congress by their supporters among the "Gingrich Republicans". Even George H.W. Bush has said that "regime change" was not the goal of the U.S. government during the 1991 Gulf War.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
That the USA PATRIOT act was bipartisan - almost unanimous - and built on Clinton administration legislation?

You should really learn to finish reading a document before beginning to polemicize against it. You sound like a complete idiot here, given that we say: "We remember that almost every Democratic Representative and Senator voted for the USA-PATRIOT Act and other similar “anti-terrorist” legislation." And, yes, the basis for the USA-PATRIOT Act was laid by Clinton's Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
And which new secret police force are you referring to?

You really aren't paying attention to what's going on, are you? One of the lesser-reported recommendations of the so-called "9/11 Commission" was the creation of the National Security Service, independent of the Dept. of Homeland Security (and thus Congressional oversight -- not that it matters much&#33 and answerable only to the president, via the Director of National Intelligence.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
Now more than ever, communists should be explaining that all the wars and repression are carried out by the whole of big business and both - heck, all - its parties. Not contributing to liberal illusions that the problem is merely Bush and those around him.

You mean like this:

"Therefore, our participation in the ‘World Can’t Wait’ campaign, while concentrating on the immediate threat from the Bush regime, is aimed at the whole of the capitalist system and its ‘good cop, bad cop’ capitalist parties. There can be no real peace, no real freedom and no real democracy unless capitalism and its agents are driven out of power."

???

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
Well, there's truth in that....in a sense that's why bourgoies democracy persists, because resistance to the bosses has not reached the point where more blatant repression is needed. (The other side to it, though, is that setting up a more repressive form of rule would not be easy or safe; there would be major resistance if that in fact was going on.)

Then I guess you would also say that Mussolini's Italy from 1922 to 1926 was also a bourgeois democracy, since the Fascist government of that time also allowed "demonstrations" that did not challenge the system.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
But then, your whole argument rests on claiming that bourgeois democracy has been abrogated by a "seizure of power"!

Sawdust.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
Then what exactly have you been doing in the rest of this statement?

As always, more than you're capable of understanding.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
And if by "corporatism" you mean the rule of corporations...then the Democrats are not apologists or a crutch for corporatism, they are corporatists. Sometimes even more blatantly than the Republicans.

The Democrats still prefer a veneer of perceived "independence", provided by the "civil service" bureaucracy and professional politicians. This creates a practical separation between them and the corporatist Republicans, who have no use for such fig leaves.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
Remember the recent Supreme Court decision allowing the eminent domain seizure of small private property - including workers' homes - for corporate development? It was supported by the liberal and moderate judges John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter and Anthony Kennedy. It was opposed by....Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. They wrote in their dissent that the liberal-moderate majority had favored those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Populist rhetoric meant to cover something more sinister. If you understood the way that bourgeois governments work, you'd know that eminent domain cuts both ways. Yes, it can be used to seize "small private property" -- the personal property of individuals -- to make room for corporate development. But it can also be used by the state to seize idle factories and re-open them under public ownership. In fact, at the beginning of the Second World War, Roosevelt used eminent domain (more accurately, the threat of invoking eminent domain) as a cudgel against General Motors and other corporations in order to push them to implement a total retool for war supplies.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
So right there, even in your "disclaimer" sentence, you build illusions in the Democrats, that they're not "corporatists" but merely soft on "corporatism".

The Democrats are not "soft on corporatism", but play a supporting role in maintaining its power. They are not the "leading" players, but they are supporters.

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
And yet somehow you forget all that things when it comes time to pretend all these things are due to the 2000 "seizure of power" by Bush...and not due to, say, the upper class' drive to raise its profit rates and restabilize its system.

What a pathetic attempt at covering your ass! You've already been proven to be a conscious falsifier on this issue, so now you're trying to whine your way out. Again, as we say, "There can be no real peace, no real freedom and no real democracy unless capitalism and its agents are driven out of power."

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:05 AM
Yeah, you can favor anything you want. Good intentions.

You know, I'm glad this argument is happening. It is really exposing the differences in method.

When the revolution comes, I am glad to know we won't have to worry about the SWP being underfoot. They'll be off in the corner trying to sell their books and newspapers -- like they usually are at demonstrations -- while the real work will be going on up front.

Severian

@Oct 3 2005, 08:05 AM
Frankly, the CPUSA has a more realistic approach to the same perceived problem of ensuring Bush's "regime" is removed along with him. To paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis: If you're going to be a reformist, be a reformist!

And here we have the alpha and omega of Severian's method, all wrapped up with a neat little bow. For him, engaging in the democratic struggle on a revolutionary basis is little more than "good intention" while the reformist practice of the "official" Communist Party is much more "realistic". The fine line between Severian's economism and reformism is erased in one gem of a sentence and all that is left is the dilettante exposed.

Miles

[Severian]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague@Oct 4 2005, 01:25 AM
You really aren't paying attention to what's going on, are you? One of the lesser-reported recommendations of the so-called "9/11 Commission" was the creation of the National Security Service, independent of the Dept. of Homeland Security (and thus Congressional oversight -- not that it matters much&#33 and answerable only to the president, via the Director of National Intelligence.

Well, you have an actual point in this one paragraph...in that no, I hadn't heard about that.

Is this the same "National Security Service"?

CNN
President Bush on Wednesday directed the creation of a new National Security Service within the FBI, one of 70 recommendations on improving the intelligence community he endorsed from the White House WMD commission.

The new service will specialize in intelligence and other national security matters and follow the priorities laid out by Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.

The service will operate within the FBI and combine the disparate assets of the Justice Department's counterterrorism, intelligence and espionage units. The changes consolidate Negroponte's power.

'Cause that sounds kinda different from what you said about it. If the FBI has become independent of "Congressional oversight" and "answerable only to the president" that would be a rather larger development than merely the creation of a new division within the FBI! And more deserving of mention in your statement, don'tcha think?

(And of course it's independent of the Dept of HS...the FBI's still under the Dept. of Justice.)

There's certainly a lot of other, and bigger, ominous moves conducted under the Bush administration, like the creation of the Northern Command for U.S. military operations within the U.S.....but it would be harder to blame that one on the creation of the "Bush regime", since it's the continuation of a Clinton policy.)

Saying something in your newspaper and actually doing something are two different things. The ISO wrote things in their paper, but did not get involved in many of the actions that took place in November and December 2000 -- and they certainly did not do it only any kind of concrete political basis. .

You may have a point that they didn't act on their statements....perhaps I was slightly off in saying the Communist League is fully in tune with the dominant mood on the left. Since you apply with consistency and enthusiasm, the backhanded support to the Democrats which others follow with inconsistency and hesitation.

But what "actions that took place in November and December 2000" are you referring to, and how many people did "get involved in" the biggest of them? I don't recall any large actions during this period....so it still seems fair to say that few people outside the left noticed any "coup" was going on.

Most organizations, though, did not do a damn thing, echoing Nader's comments about it being a "tempest in a teacup" ... just like you're doing

This couldn't be more false. The ISO was typical of groups claiming to be socialist or communist.

First, there were those who'd openly supported Gore all along, like the Democratic Socialists of America and Communist Party USA. Obviously they supported him in the recount battle too.

But those maintaining a pretense of political independence also proclaimed that Bush was stealing the election. For example:

Workers World, which ran its own presidential candidate, said Bush stole the election
They also organized sizable protests in DC - they claim tens of thousands - against the inauguration of the "thief".
The Socialist Equality Party, which also ran its own presidential candidate, had a similar reaction.
As did the RCP, which as usual boycotted.

They've gotten more stridently anti-Bush since, of course. Talk of a Bush "coup" and "regime" is near-universal now.

The recent creation of the CL is just a manifestation of this general trend on the left.

[Severian]

Happened to come across this (starting from Google News) and thought of this thread and the question of whether the Bush administration is neoconservative. It's from the neoconservative journal The Weekly Standard, by its editor William Kristol, in some sense the intellectual founder of neoconservatism. The title of his reaction to Bush's latest Supreme Court pick:

Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized

If somebody's puppeting Bush, apparently it isn't the neoconservatives.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Severian+Oct 4 2005, 07:05 AM--> (Severian @ Oct 4 2005, 07:05 AM)Well, you have an actual point in this one paragraph...in that no, I hadn't heard about that.

Is this the same "National Security Service"?...[/b]

Actually, yes and no. The NSS, based on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, is being separated from the FBI, and is now also including the intelligence apparati from the military arms. It will work with the FBI domestically, the CIA internationally, and the military in combat theaters. It will answer to the NDI and the President.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:05 AM
There's certainly a lot of other, and bigger, ominous moves conducted under the Bush administration, like the creation of the Northern Command for U.S. military operations within the U.S.....but it would be harder to blame that one on the creation of the "Bush regime", since it's the continuation of a Clinton policy.)

It's not a continuation, in the sense you're talking about. NorthCom was created under Clinton. It continues to exist under Bush. And, when it was first created, I personally was a part of demonstrations against it. Where were you and the SWP?

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:05 AM
But what "actions that took place in November and December 2000" are you referring to, and how many people did "get involved in" the biggest of them? I don't recall any large actions during this period....so it still seems fair to say that few people outside the left noticed any "coup" was going on.

There were demonstrations and marches, large and small, that took place across the country in December 2000 and January 2001. Some of them were organized by VoterMarch, a liberal outfit, and others were more spontaneous. Where I was living at the time, the morning after the Supreme Court stopped the manual recounts in Florida, there were a couple hundred people outside of the federal courthouse protesting. A few faces I recognized as lefties, but most people I had never seen before.

That said, you know as well as I do that, in a period of growing reaction, protest actions are small. But, I guess that the difference between you and me is that I actually went and talked to workers about the issues.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:05 AM
First, there were those who'd openly supported Gore all along, like the Democratic Socialists of America and Communist Party USA. Obviously they supported him in the recount battle too.

What did you expect DSA and the CPUSA to do? Anything other than supporting the Democrats would have been out of their nature.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:05 AM
But those maintaining a pretense of political independence also proclaimed that Bush was stealing the election.

But, again, words and deeds. The left likes to talk a lot, but do nothing.

Severian

@Oct 4 2005, 07:05 AM
They've gotten more stridently anti-Bush since, of course. Talk of a Bush "coup" and "regime" is near-universal now.

The recent creation of the CL is just a manifestation of this general trend on the left.

And the grapes were sour to begin with. :P

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Severian@Oct 4 2005, 08:03 AM
Happened to come across this (starting from Google News) and thought of this thread and the question of whether the Bush administration is neoconservative. It's from the neoconservative journal The Weekly Standard, by its editor William Kristol, in some sense the intellectual founder of neoconservatism. The title of his reaction to Bush's latest Supreme Court pick:

Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized

If somebody's puppeting Bush, apparently it isn't the neoconservatives.

More sawdust.

Miles

[Nachie]

If shit like this actually worked, the RCP would have abolished police brutality several Octobers ago

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Nachie@Oct 4 2005, 12:44 PM
If shit like this actually worked, the RCP would have abolished police brutality several Octobers ago

I know what you're saying. Believe me. But, I have to admit there is a difference between this and some of the other kinds of campaigns the RCP has initiated over the years: this one is actually gaining something of a large (I wouldn't quite go so far as to say mass) following.

From the reports I received, WCW campaign supporters, signs, stickers, shirts, etc., seemed to be everywhere at all of the main demonstrations in the U.S. on September 24. That is something we anticipated might happen.

We will have to see what develops on November 2, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's more -- a lot more -- than the RCP, us and a few others out there.

Miles

[Nachie]

Well, I don't know anything about this Communist League, but it just never seems like the best use of energy to get behind somebody else's little plaything. Because then you become their little plaything. CL's involvement in WCW won't do much for the CL, but it might do something for the RCP. Just like CWC isn't going to do anything to throw out Bush, but it'll do plenty to hype up the Maoists.

Hell, there are "walkout on Nov. 2nd" stickers around the schools in my area, but I seriously doubt that means it's actually going to happen! Remember that the Left has built a legacy out of projecting a more menacing face than it actually has. Or rather, more numbers than it actually has. That WCW propaganda was getting passed out in all the major US demos is not really surprising to me at all - after all, there were probably RCP cadres at all these demos, as well.

Anyway yeah, it'd be cool if it was a big thing. I'd love to be wrong (but I'd also love for the RCP to not be involved). Anyway, how big CAN it be? Bigger than S24? Did S24 accomplish something?

[Severian]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Oct 4 2005, 08:04 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Oct 4 2005, 08:04 AM)

Severian

@Oct 4 2005, 07:05 AM
Well, you have an actual point in this one paragraph...in that no, I hadn't heard about that.

Is this the same "National Security Service"?...

Actually, yes and no. The NSS, based on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, is being separated from the FBI, and is now also including the intelligence apparati from the military arms. It will work with the FBI domestically, the CIA internationally, and the military in combat theaters. It will answer to the NDI and the President. [/b]

Source?

'Cause everything I can find says Something different

National Security: FBI or MI-5?
While this issue is under discussion in the news, we would like to give you access to the WMD Commission Report's specific recommendation on it:

"Like the 9/11 Commission, we considered and rejected the creation of a separate agency devoted entirely to internal security without any law enforcement powers.
....
"We believe it is critical that the National Security Service remain within the FBI.
....
Of course all activities in the National Security Service would be performed consistent with the Attorney General Guidelines for national security investigations and foreign intelligence collection, as well as under the Department of Justice and Congressional oversight.
....
--Report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, Chapter 10: Intelligence at Home: The FBI, Justice, and Homeland Security, pp. 466-67, March 31, 2005.

As I recall, placing military intelligence under the NDI's control was one of the bipartisan 9/11 commissions' recommendations which the Pentagon fiercely resisted - for obvious turf reasons - and Bush rejected. The Democrats supported it.

So if that's one of the moves you regard as important evidence of a dangerous increase in "corporatism," apparently the Democrats are even more dangerous and more "corporatist" than Bush on that point.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Severian@Oct 4 2005, 04:27 PM
As I recall, placing military intelligence under the NDI's control was one of the bipartisan 9/11 commissions' recommendations which the Pentagon fiercely resisted - for obvious turf reasons - and Bush rejected. The Democrats supported it.

So if that's one of the moves you regard as important evidence of a dangerous increase in "corporatism," apparently the Democrats are even more dangerous and more "corporatist" than Bush on that point.

Having went through all the information again, I will concede that the issue is not completely settled, and the original function of NSS may end up being what was originally conceived.

I don't necessarily consider the NSS in and of itself as "one of the moves" I see as "evidence of a dangerous increase in 'corporatism'." However, when taken in context of everything else, it is a real concern.

Finally, you might have a point about the Democrats being "more dangerous and more 'corporatist' than Bush", except for one thing: The Democrats are not in power. The Republicans are. The Democrats can only, at this moment, play a supporting role to the Republicans' lead.

If it was Bush in the White House and the Democrats running Congress, and all of what has happened over the last few years happened, then the situation, and the formulations, would be different.

Miles

[Severian]

So: part of the evidence for the extra-special awfulness of the "Bush regime" was...a bipartisan commission's proposal, which was rejected by the "Bush regime".

What next? Will you blame the "Bush regime" for Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft?