New section: added February 12, 2005 Pieces of a Puzzle that Lock Together   How hysteria about fascism helps social-democracy   suck the life and militancy out of the antiwar movement Social-Democratic line (as typified by Carl Davidson's defense of RCP's leaflet) Social-Democracy preaches contempt for mobilizing workers in a way which is independent of bourgeois influence. Instead, it promotes an alliance with the imperialist Democratic Party in which everything is subordinated to Democratic Party politics. In other words: give up your militancy and independence, put on your coat and tie and be prepared, for the rest of your life, to close your eyes and kiss ass. Carl Davidson, a leading honcho of "Chicagoans Against War and Injustice", is a promoter of one of the most blood-soaked lies of our time -- the idea that if activists will only sells their souls (ie: give up their opposition to imperialism) they can supposedly transform the imperialist Democratic Party into a vehicle for the antiwar movement! Once an activist accepts this line -- he or she has, in practical political terms, been given a lobotomy. Mr. Davidson (a seasoned representative of social-democracy and a loyal servant of the imperialist Democratic Party) admits that he likes the RCP leaflet. Why is this? Because the RCP leaflet helps to frighten activists and stampede them in his direction. Mr. Davisson is not bothered by the RCP's empty talk about a world without capitalism because he knows that, coming from the RCP, this is nothing but impotent hot air. Activists who are frightened of supposedly impending fascism will run into Mr. Davidson's waiting arms far more often than they will run in the direction of an impotent outfit that does not even have the ability to defend its views in an Indymedia forum. RCP's line (in their "Battle for the Future" leaflet) RCP's overwhelming emphasis on only one of the twin parties of imperialism: • IGNORES the fact that Bush could never have launched his wars on Iraq and Afganistan or increased repression at home without the full support of the Democratic Party; • IGNORES the role of the Democratic Party as a vehicle of bourgeois influence within the antiwar movement; • IGNORES how the Democratic party is used to steer the antiwar movement into the dead-end of bourgeois politics-as-usual. All the hot air in the world about a society in the future without capitalism is bullshit when the main content of the leaflet is used today to herd activists into the treacherous arms of social-democracy. The RCP, by adapting to the prevailing ideology in the antiwar movement (which fails to understand the treacherous influence and role of the Democratic Party) instead of challenging this prevailing ideology -- ends up reinforcing the political influence of the dominant social-democratic ideology. See next section (below) about how Carl Davidson promotes illusions about the Democratic Party in order to sell support for the war.

How Carl Davidson promotes illusions about the Democratic Party to defend funding the war in Iraq In a recent essay on the current orientation that activists should take today, "The Road Ahead After 2004: Building a Broad Nonpartisan Alliance Against Bush and the Far Right", Carl Davidson quotes approvingly from Tom Hayden who, Carl says, "recently summed up our tasks as well as anyone": "we need to build a Progressive Democratic movement which will pressure the Democrats to become an anti-war opposition party." The sentence above is the key piece of the puzzle that exposes the nature of this political deception which is designed to suck the life and militancy out of the antiwar movement. The Democratic Party is imperialist to the core. Every bloody war and "intervention", large and small, that U.S. imperialism has waged against the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America has been made possible by the full support of the Democratic Party. Yes, the day may come when the Democratic Party will parade itself as an "antiwar" party. But this will only happen once it is clear that U.S. imperialism has been soundly beaten by the Iraqi people. Then (once it is clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the war is a lost cause) the "antiwar Democrats" will swing into action to cut funds for the war and make it appear that a section of the ruling class can be relied on to oppose imperialist war. Activists who fall for this nonsense end up being either brain dead -- or -- treacherous opponents of the antiwar movement. Want proof? Take a look at another sentence from the same passage. I call this the "money shot": “the first step is to build pressure at congressional district levels to oppose any further funding or additional troops for war. If members of Congress balk at cutting off all assistance and want to propose "conditions" for further aid, it is a small step toward threatening funding." Incredibly, Carl Davidson and Tom Hayden are arguing that it is just fine for "progressive" Democrats to vote for money for the war in Iraq or send additional troops as long as meaningless conditions (such as a supposedly "realistic assessment of the situation" and a pledge to "make sure our troops have everything they need") are attached to the blood money! This helps to show how, step by step, these false friends of the antiwar movement work to convert antiwar activism into support for the war.

Carl Davidson defends RCP's leaflet in Indymedia exchange with Ben Seattle Carl Davidson, who defends (see above) funding the war in Iraq, also defended the RCP's leaflet when I criticized it in this thread on Chicago Indymedia. Carl's reply to me is the third of the four posts post below. (A 2nd reply from Carl to me is not presented here. It can be seen on the original thread.) ------------------------------------------------ Re: RCP Cries "Wolf" over Fascism by browser 07 Feb 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Is it just the RCP? Are they crying wolf? I'm not sure this is just a propaganda tactic. They clearly believe that something qualitatively different is happening in the US government -- and I share the fear. Is it just "compelling material interest" that leads the ruling class to install fascism, or is it more complicated than that? It can be argued that there are "compelling" interests that have unleashed the new war against everyone -- and the changes in legal structure, collapse of the Democrats as anything like an effective opposition and well-developed social base for fascism are all real. Delay. Gonzalez. Rumsfeld. These are names we know. What about the Christian fundamentalists who are largely running the Pentagon? What about the purges of the CIA? What is the effect of media consolidation? And so on... I think the RCP's analysis is correct in terms of the danger we are facing. I also think that radicals need to think through what the implications of it are for what they are doing now. The right isn't playing around. They are very focused and intent on putting this country together in a vastly more repressive and militarist way. They publically defend torture -- something the Nazis didn't even do! The distribution of the RCP paper is also something to take note of. It's not enough to put flyers up in hip bars and East Village bathrooms. People need to be thinking in the millions with everything they do. ------------------------------------------------ reply to browser by Ben Seattle 08 Feb 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Thanks for your thoughtful reply. These are important questions and all discussion is welcome. > Is it just "compelling material interest" > that leads the ruling class to install fascism, > or is it more complicated than that? 99 percent of the complication lies in accurately understanding the compelling material interest at stake. The changes we have seen since 9-11 (ie: the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, the increasing repression at home, the refusal of the Democratic Party to lift a finger to oppose any of this) are a clear reflection of the class interest of the bourgeoisie. The Soviet Union collapsed. Now is the time for U.S. imperialism to establish unrivalled hegemony over the Middle East and the world's oil supply in order to better compete against European imperialism and what is left of Russian power and to prepare for inevitable conflict with the rising power of China. Oil is the most strategic of commodities and control of the largest oil reserves in the world (ie: permanent military bases in the heart of the Middle East next to Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc) will give U.S. imperialism immense leverage for decades against both India and China which need oil for development. But the bourgeoisie does not have a compelling need for fascism at this time. Bush will push, of course, but will not exceed the limits of his leash. Bush is irritated at the confines of his leash -- but if he failed to respect this leash he would be bounced around like a rubber ball. The bourgeoisie has much to _lose_ by unleashing fascism. I advanced three arguments in my essay above. I repeat them here: Such a desperate course of action by the bourgeoisie would: (a) instantly politicize tens of millions of people, (b) destablize the entire system of bourgeois rule and (c) destroy illusions in the bourgeois political system . that the bourgeoisie has carefully crafted and . painstakingly cultivated over many decades. We need to understand these arguments concretely. A good start would be to recognize that they require a reply. > What about the Christian fundamentalists who are > largely running the Pentagon? What about the purges > of the CIA? What about them? What do these things prove? Different sections of the bourgeoisie will have squabbles with one another. It is fine to be aware of these squabbles but we should be careful not to exaggerate their significance. The main thing to keep in mind -- is that the bourgeoisie is united by its common class interest -- and this common class interest requires keeping society running in a smooth and stable way. Fascism is notoriously unstable. Bourgeois class interests are better served (under present circumstances) by a system that keeps the majority of the population complacent and under the illusion that they live in a "democracy". In my view, browser, your thinking tends to overlook the fact that the bourgeoisie cannot rule by force alone -- cannot rule without political deception. If the Christian fundamentalists even thought about slipping their leash -- they would be disciplined and humiliated. The general who recently talked about how much fun it is to kill people, for example, was told to shut up. The bourgeoisie as a whole (and in particular the section which specializes in political deception -- the liberals) understands that a ounce of political deception can be more effective (and cheaper) than a ton of force -- and that the fascist-minded who talk too loud must have their mouths washed out with soap lest they give the game away. It is important to undertand how our society really works and to understand that the bourgeoisie would not be able to maintain their class rule for very long without the effective use of political deception. Understanding this will energize and motivate activists -- because as we build a conscious movement we will build with it an increasing powerful weapon that will puncture the political deception of the bourgeoisie. And this will change everything. > The distribution of the RCP paper is also > something to take note of. It's not enough > to put flyers up in hip bars and East Village > bathrooms. People need to be thinking in the > millions with everything they do. Yes it is a very good thing that the RCP is developing a machine that can distribute a million leaflets independent of the mainstream bourgeois media. But this cannot amount to much if the RCP is unable to defend its views in forums such as this one. Finally, browser, since you have made the same post in response to my article on Indymedia sites in New York, Chicago, DC and Denver -- I will make it easier for you if you want to expand your challenge. I have posted on the following theads: http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/244358.shtml http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310064.shtml http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/122188.php http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1719881.php http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/1710707.php http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display/21620/index.php http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/37243.php http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10161/index.php http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/33323/index.php http://atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/display/36407/index.php http://buffalo.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=6512 http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/52350/index.php http://michiganimc.org/newswire/display/9305/index.php http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/116938/index.php http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/140883/index.php http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/14568.php http://www.phillyimc.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/06/0751235 Go ahead. Reply to me elsewhere (I think that supporters of the RCP may need a little help, if not adult supervision, in Atlanta). I am in favor of wider discussion. Sincerely and revolutionary regards, Ben Seattle http://struggle.net/ben ------------------------------------------------ Re: RCP Cries "Wolf" over Fascism by Carl Davidson 08 Feb 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Ben: Even though I am often at odds with the RCP, I think they are at least right to raise the danger of fascism and put it on the table. We can argue about its nature or how impending it is, but I agree the question is serious and worthy of more discussion. As for your position. You say: Query to Ben: > What about the Christian fundamentalists who are > largely running the Pentagon? What about the > purges of the CIA? You answer: "What about them? What do these things prove? Different sections of the bourgeoisie will have squabbles with one another. It is fine to be aware of these squabbles but we should be careful not to exaggerate their significance. The main thing to keep in mind -- is that the bourgeoisie is united by its common class interest -- and this common class interest requires keeping society running in a smooth and stable way. "Fascism is notoriously unstable. Bourgeois class interests are better served (under present circumstances) by a system that keeps the majority of the population complacent and under the illusion that they live in a 'democracy'." ----- My Point: You belittle these divisions by referring to them as 'squabbles' that are more or less around all the time, while the class unity of the bourgeosie is fundamental. I think we need to look at each period of history concretely, in its own context first. It's true that the bourgeosie prefers stability and, in most cases, bourgeois democratic forms of rule to mask their armed power--both the hangman and the priest, as Lenin said. They need both. But I think you're missing two important points. Part of the argument in the ruling circles at this point is precisely on the need for stability. the anti-Bush folks believe his unilateralist approach is bringing great instabilty to the world. Which leads to the second point. These 'squabbles' are taking place, not only within the US ruling class, but on a world scale. In the past, it was mainly between rival national bourgeosies, even if the bourgeosies in question spread their tentacles wide and had offices and plants in many countries. But I would argue that there is something new on the rise, ie, a truly global capitalist class-in-the making, a force with no national loyalties. This rising global force finds itself in sharp conflict--not with every section of the US bourgeosie, since it has local representatives, here and in other countries--but mainly which the Bush hegemonists who still believe that this is their 'unipolarar moment,' rather than the more realistic view that this is a multipolar world. This is why the like of Soros and other globalists worked so hard to defeat Bush, precisely because they see him and his particular sector of class forces, as a threat to the global stability they crave. To defeat their effort to unseat him, Bush & Co. rallied the Christian Zionist right, which is now demanding advances on its own agenda, and posing threats to stability, both at home and abroad. Therein lies the fascist danger. Not ready for a full fledged takeover imminently, but a danger we need to defeat nonetheless. In brief, I think this is not the time to stress the 'unity' of the bourgeois' and to minimize their so-called 'squabbles.' A much different course and way of seeing thing is required at this time in our history. ------------------------------------------------ Build a movement independent of bourgeois influence (reply to Carl Davidson) by Ben Seattle 09 Feb 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Hi Carl, Thanks for your reply. I believe it serves the movement to have our differences in the open. > I would argue that there is something new on the rise, > ie, a truly global capitalist class-in-the making, > a force with no national loyalties. This is an interesting analysis and it may even contain a particle or two of truth. However, George Soros notwithstanding, the bourgeoisie remains organized on a national basis and this is not going to substantially change within our lifetimes. Lenin summed it up in his famous book on imperialism. National economies (and the ability to wage war) grow at an uneven rate and result in redivisions of hegemony over global resources (such as labor markets and petroleum). These redivisions sometimes take place without war -- but recourse to war is inevitable because there is no other way to determine, with certainty, which imperialist power is strong enough to win. The only way to end war is to overthrow the economic and political system of imperialism. And this means doing away with the class rule of the bourgeoisie. This is the bottom line and it will not be changed by fancy talk about the development of a global capitalist class. This notion was wrong when it was advanced by Karl Kautsky. Guess what? It is still wrong today. > I think this is not the time to stress the 'unity' > of the bourgeois' and to minimize their so-called > 'squabbles.' A much different course and way of > seeing thing is required at this time in our history. For activists like you, Carl, there never is a good time to create clarity on the nature of our enemy. I find it very enlightening that a social-democrat like you, Carl, defends the analysis of the RCP -- which holds that the fascist danger is so great that activists must give up a sober appraisal of the class interests and class forces which shape modern society and which enable Bush and company to carry our war abroad and to increase repression at home. The bourgeoisie promotes the theory of "two power centers". The political trend of social-democracy (which is subservient to bourgeois interests) promotes the idea that we can ally ourselves to one of these power centers in order to defeat the other. This is the biggest and oldest con game in the world. This is the theory promoted by the Democratic Party and its army of reformist apologists. Instead of building a movement which is independent of bourgeois influence and oriented toward the working class, the reformists preach to us that we should unite with powerful forces who will supposedly help us "defeat Bush" if we only give up our independence and principles and allow ourselves to be blindfolded and lobotomised. This is the lie used by the Democratic Party to suck the life and militancy out of the antiwar movement. My opposition to the main point of the RCP's leaflet (ie: the promotion of hysteria about impending fascism) was centered on the fact that this analysis tended to support the idea that we should unite with "powerful forces" to "defeat the fascist threat". The RCP did not spell this out in so many words. Nor does Carl spell it out in so many words. But this is Carl's line -- and it fits together with the RCP's line like two locking pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Ben Seattle http://struggle.net/ben See related article: "How to build a powerful antiwar movement" http://struggle.net/Ben/2005/0120-how-to.htm

Go to top of page