Mu

Mu

Monday, June 18, 2018

Reading notes - Fascism and Big Business by Daniel Guerin

Chapter 7: The real fascist doctrine

....Fascism no longer needs to hide its real face, and in fact it finds it useful to legitimize its rule with a "doctrine." This doctrine, to be sure, was not elaborated for the first time after the conquest of power. Long before that, it could be found in the writings and speeches of the leaders, though submerged in "anti-capitalist" phraseology. Now demagogy retires to the background, yielding the spotlight to ideological justification of the dictatorship. And at last we see clearly that fascist doctrine is an old acquaintance; it is a twin of reactionary philosophy, the philosophy of feudalism, of absolutism.

....This was precisely the philosophy that the bourgeoisie had to combat so bitterly at the dawn of its rule in order to achieve its own liberation. To the pessimistic dogma of the fall of man, the bourgeoisie opposed the idea of unlimited progress; to the "aristocratic principle" and the "Moloch-State," government by the masses and democracy; to brute force, human "rights."

....But the day came when the bourgeoisie perceived "that all the weapons which it had forged against feudalism turned their points against itself, that all the means of education which it had produced rebelled against its own civilization, that all the gods which it had created had fallen away from it" -when it understood that "all the so-called bourgeois liberties and organs of progress attacked and menaced its class rule .... " Shaken to its foundations by the crisis of capitalism, able to save its threatened profits only by destroying democratic institutions and brutally exterminating the proletarian organizations, the bourgeoisie rejects the ideology that once helped it triumph over absolutism. Indeed, it dresses itself up in the ideology of that self-same absolutism-it denies progress, attacks reason, refuses the masses the right of self-government, tramples on democracy, invokes the "aristocratic principle" and "reasons of State," rehabilitates violence. There is nothing astonishing about finding reactionary thinkers who attacked with hatred the ideas of the French Revolution, democracy and liberalism, suddenly becoming great men. From these "masters of counterrevolution"  fascism borrows its doctrines. "We represent the antithesis ... of all that world of the 'immoral principles' of 1789,"  a reaction against the "movement of the eighteenth-century visionaries and Encyclopedists," exclaim the Italian fascists. And the National Socialists say: "The year 1789 will be erased from history .... " "We wish to destroy the immoral ideology of the French Revolution."

....The bourgeoisie used the idea of progress to batter down the bastilles of absolutism. Antiquity and the Middle Ages lived on the idea of the corruption and decadence of the human race, on the dogma of the fall of man: humanity, come perfect from the hands of God, was through original sin plunged into evil. Man is born wicked and is not perfectible-and similarly his political, economic, and social system. Man must accept it as imposed by God, without discussion and without hope of improvement. To this pessimistic doctrine, so convenient for the justification of tyranny and the legitimization of poverty, the bourgeoisie, eager to be freed, opposed the idea of infinite progress at the beginning of its domination. The golden age is not in the past but before us; humanity is perfectible and is continually rising from poverty to material well-being, from ignorance to knowledge, from barbarism to civilization. The great discoveries of the second half of the eighteenth century, the birth of the machine age and modern industry, gave new confirmation to the idea of progress. The young industrial bourgeoisie was sure the new means of production invented by it were capable of infinitely improving the lot of humanity. From this came the blissful optimism of the Saint-Simonian businessmen like Michel Chevalier.

....But a day comes when the idea of progress is turned against the bourgeoisie. The productive forces, as they develop at a dizzy rate of speed, come into conflict with the social system. Capitalist society ceases to be progressive, and, far from holding out to humanity a prospect of well-being, it offers only poverty and unemployment. Then suddenly the bourgeoisie stops believing in progress. The opponents of progress become its ideological masters.

Another weapon of the conquering bourgeoisie was reason. For revealed knowledge, it substituted the free exercise of intelligence, the supremacy of common sense. But today that weapon is being turned against it. The employment of reason and scientific analysis can no longer serve except to undermine the foundations of its rule and condemn the capitalist system of production; only a resorting to the "irrational" can permit it to prolong its reign. Let man renounce domination of the world and subject himself to it as to a "mystic phenomenon" (the expression is from Edouard Berth, another of Sorel's disciples);  let his intelligence be ready to abdicate before all the instinctive forces and be carried away by any "movement" whatever; let him be ready to follow the first charlatan who comes along, the first maker of miracles or myths; let him be ready to trust, not to reasoned actions but to blind faith in a Duce or a Fuehrer in seeking a way out from his sufferings.

....Once absolutism was conquered, the bourgeoisie instituted the form of government that best corresponded to its historic mission. Free competition, "laisserjaire," and free trade were the very conditions for capitalist expansion. Economic liberalism was extended to political liberalism, to parliamentary democracy. But a day comes when liberty and democracy are incompatible with bourgeois rule. The era of free competition is succeeded by that of monopoly capitalism. We have seen that in order to save their profits, threatened by crisis, the capitalist magnates need the support of the state. They have to substitute for the democratic state the authoritarian state (Chapter 1). Then the bourgeoisie tramples with rage on its old idols, and the reactionary theoreticians of anti-democracy become its ideological masters.

....At the dawn of its rule, the capitalist bourgeoisie demanded that the state call as little attention to its existence as possible, and it victoriously refuted the "barbarous" concept of the Moloch-State. But today, it needs the strong state. Hence it adopts the philosophers of absolutism and takes as its own, Hobbes' State, "a real mortal god"; Hegel's State, which is its own end, and for which the individual is nothing; and Treitschke's State, which "does not need to ask the people to consent but only to obey."

....In the early days of its power, the bourgeoisie denied the legitimacy of violence and the "right of the strongest" as old barbaric notions deriving from the first ages of man upon which feudal and absolutist society still rested. Instead of force, the eighteenth-century philosophers championed human "rights." Relations between men should be no longer settled by force but determined by contracts; Rousseau refuted the "alleged" right of the strongest and declared that "might does not make right."

In fact, with the appearance of "right," the bourgeoisie, once it was the dominant class, ruled by force. But, not needing to display force too openly, it preferred to rule through the fiction of "law." But a time comes when the bourgeoisie can save its threatened profits only by exterminating the proletarian organizations and governing through terror. Then it digs up the old notions of barbaric epochs; it rehabilitates violence and adopts reactionary apologists of violence as its authorities.

These apologists transfer the discoveries of Darwin from the domain of biology to the field of sociology, distorting them in the process.


From: Fascism and Big Business by Daniel Guerin http://www.pathfinderpress.com/s.nl/it.A/id.702/.f?sc=8&category=110

Sunday, June 17, 2018

Reading notes - Imperialism vs. working people (1979).



Imperialism vs. working people
War in Southeast Asia: Shows that the source of conflict is the insatiable profit drive of world capitalism
By Steve Clark

MARCH 23, 1979
http://themilitant.com/1979/4311/MIL4311.pdf
_________


....'Carter's effort to put U.S.
imperialism back on a war
footing is a key battlefront in
the capitalist offensive
against workers at home and
abroad.'



How U.S. left responded

No one on the American left except the Militant
and Socialist Workers Party has stood up under the pressure of this capitalist ideological barrage. No one except the Militant and SWP has consistently kept the spotlight on U.S. imperialism and its drive to contain and roll back the Indochinese revolution.


In a front-page editorial in its February 28 issue,
for example, the Guardian lent credence to Carter's lie that Washington was not involved in plotting the invasion of Vietnam. "We denounce imperialism, even though it is not yet directly involved," said the Guardian perfunctorily.


The following issue went even further, polemiciz-
ing against those who viewed the trade mission to
China by Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal
as "an implicit imprimatur for Beijing's [Peking's]
attack." Actually, the Guardian explained, the
invasion conflicted "with Washington's perceptions of its overall interests."


"....it is content to maneuver skillfully between the contradictions which have set socialist against socialist, exacerbating problems wherever possible."


The Guardian echoes the New York Times's "Red
Brotherhood at War" editorial, warning of a "social-
ist world war."


"These are sorry days for socialism," the Guard-
ian complains, "despite continuing advances by the world's peoples against oppression and exploitation.


"China has invaded Vietnam. Vietnam has in-
vaded Kampuchea. The words evoke nausea. Where will it end?"


Similar themes have appeared in the social-
democratic weekly, In These Times. An editorial in its January 17-23 issue, before the invasion of
Vietnam, argued that unlike the 1950s and 1960s,
when "international conflicts revolved around the
confrontation between world capitalism and world
communism," today the main "conflicts in world
politics involve those among communists and so-
cialists. . . . "


An editorial in ITT's February 28-March 6 issue
even explained that "so far, to his credit, President Carter has assumed a restrained position" in the Indochina conflicts.


"The Chinese invasion of Vietnam, like the Viet-
namese invasion of Cambodia," said the editorial,
"is one more episode in the rise of national antagonism dividing communist states. But it is not a minor episode: it underscores the grave danger such conflict poses to world peace. . . .


"It has deepened the worldwide confusion, dis-
cord, and demoralization in the ranks of socialists
who have always argued that socialism would put
an end to wars of aggression."


The American radical press all portray the main
actors in the recent Indochina conflicts as the
governments of the Soviet Union and China, with
Vietnam and Kampuchea in supporting roles.


"Vietnam" invaded "Kampuchea," everyone ex-
plains. Then "China" invaded "Vietnam."
"Countries" are at war over "national antago-
nisms" and "spheres of influence." All social div-
isions between and within these countries, all
classes, disappear.


Who invaded Vietnam? The Chinese masses, or
the Stalinist regime in Peking? Does it matter that
capitalism had been toppled in Vietnam, but not in
Kampuchea?


Most important, where is the struggle between the
Indochinese masses and U.S. imperialism? Has
Washington simply written off Southeast Asia?
Why has it suddenly and dramatically stepped up
military shipments to the Thai dictatorship? What
really happened when Teng visited Washington,
and when Blumenthal visited Peking?


Most of the radical press has ended up echoing
the "explanations" offered by the bourgeois press,
which does its best to disguise the underlying
struggle between exploiters and exploited-the class struggle-that is at the center of all world politics.


In contrast to this classless mishmash, Marxists
explain that at the root of the Indochina wars is the drive by the capitalist rulers of the United States to defend their class interests against the extension of social revolution in Southeast Asia. The main actors are the American ruling class, supported by the Moscow and Peking bureaucracies, on the one hand; and the toiling masses of Indochina, togetherwith the U.S. and Chinese workers, on the other.


Despite surface appearances, the Peking and
Hanoi Stalinist regimes are not the central protagonists in this struggle. They represent privileged bureaucratic castes balanced between the contending class forces.


In an essay written forty years ago, Russian
Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky explained this cru-
cial starting point for understanding anything
about twentieth century politics: "The struggle for
domination considered on a historical scale is not
between the proletariat and the [Stalinist] bureau-
cracy, but between the proletariat and world bour-
geoisie."


"In its capacity of a transmitting mechanism in
this struggle," Trotsky said, "the bureaucracy leans now on the proletariat against imperialism, now on imperialism against the proletariat, in order to increase its own power." ("Not a Workers' and Not a Bourgeois State?" in Writings of Leon Trotsky (1937-1938).)


Today in Indochina, the Peking Stalinists are
leaning on U.S. imperialism against the interests of both the Indochinese and Chinese masses. Their goal is to get an economic deal with U.S. capitalism and prove their reliability to Washington as an opponent of revolutionary change in Asia.


….In contrast to this classless mishmash, Marxists explain that at the root of the Indochina wars isthe drive by the capitalist rulers of the United States to defend their class interests against the extension of social revolution in Southeast Asia. The main actors are the American ruling class, supported by the Moscow and Peking bureaucracies, on the one
hand; and the toiling masses of Indochina, together In countering these incorrect conceptions, the Militant has stressed that:


• The threat of war in today's world originates in
the profit drive of imperialism. At the heart of this
drive is the capitalists' ultimate aim of rolling back
all conquests of the working class-from unions, to
the fourteen workers states, where capitalism has
been abolished;


• The Stalinist bureaucratic castes that dominate
all the workers states except Cuba are not driven
toward wars of aggression and do not seek an
offensive military capacity. Their foreign policies
are neither those of an imperialist government
promoting the interests of the capitalists, nor those of a revolutionary workers state pursuing the struggle to overturn world capitalism;


• The Stalinist castes play a counterrevolution-
ary role on a world scale, acting as a transmission
belt for imperialist pressure against the working
class. Nonetheless, they are forced in the interests of self-preservation to defend the property relations in the workers states against imperialism, although their class-collaborationist methods actually weaken the defense of these gains; and


• All the key questions in world politics will be
decided in the battles between imperialism and the world working class, a key part of which is the fight to overthrow the bureaucratic castes and replace them by democratic rule of the working class.




....'It is the bureaucratic castes'
rejection of proletarian inter-
nationalism that is their real
betrayal of the cause of world
peace.'

Reading notes - American Politics Today: The Working Class Moves to Center Stage (1979)







American Politics Today: The Working Class Moves to Center Stage
By Jack Barnes


THE MILITANT/MARCH 16, 1979
http://themilitant.com/1979/4310/MIL4310.pdf

________



....We have entered a period in the United
States where the class war, because of the class-
collaborationist default of the labor bureaucracy,
is being fought in guerrilla struggles in factory
after factory. You could say that what is taking
place is urban guerrilla warfare for an extended
period. And, judging from the reports from Can-
ada and Mexico, we should add that it is on a
continental scale.


That is what we have: guerrilla warfare by the
workers, defensive struggles, not politically led,
not consciously organized, not carried out in a
coordinated way.

....It was correct to say that the [1978 UMWA] mine strike was the most important battle of labor since the showdown in the General Motors strike in 1946.


There is no doubt about that now.  What happened in the miners' struggle affected
the relationship of class forces in this country. It
shed light on the patterns of struggle that are
coming-in industry and in the country as a
whole. It illuminated the changing relationship
of forces between the ruling class, the labor
bureaucracy, and the workers. And that is at the
heart of all politics in this country.


The strike deeply affected the ruling class and
the way they view their tactical problems. It
profoundly affected the working class and its
allies, changing the way they look at themselves
and at each other.


I think it also affected the revolutionary party.
It sharpened our view of politics in this country
today. And it showed once more how a party can
act decisively, even when it is very small, in a
way that can begin affecting much larger
forces-providing you are in the strategically
decisive arenas of action.

....Over the years, the American working class
became a political prisoner, incarcerated in the
antilabor legislation and class-collaborationist
institutions. The workers were held in check by
the housebroken labor bureaucracy, which the
employers relied on more and more to do the job
for them.

....One of the biggest problems facing the rulers
in this country is the antiwar attitude of the
workers who fought imperialism's war in Viet-
nam for a decade, then got the austerity offensive
as a thank you. This deep-seated suspicion is a
state of consciousness the rulers are determined
to reverse-because they know they must be able
to directly use American military power.
They must do this not because of the strength
of world imperialism but because of its weakness,
the shift in the world relationship of class forces
against them.

....as the pressure mounts to break out of the
framework of capitalist politics, the rulers are
going to make more and more of an effort to
come up with safety valves that keep the exploit-
ed and oppressed stuck in lesser-evilism. If nec-
essary, they will increase the number of Black
candidates running. They will find this woman
to run, that young person, this "populist," that
gay person, this "environmentalist." They will
even start running some "socialist" Democrats.
Just as long as they don't break out of the
framework of capitalist politics, but instead serve
as a way of sucking people back in.

....Today the gap is closing between the
radicalism and combativity of the labor move-
ment as a whole, and the level of political
consciousness in the Black and Chicano com-
munities.


Not that the gap has been closed. But think
back to the 1950s, with the rise of the civil rights
movement. Compare the consciousness and the
readiness for political action-even if not on the
electoral front-of the Black community and the
labor movement then. In those days, the labor
movement was almost totally dominated by the
most reactionary political positions of the Meany
leadership.


But a great deal has changed in the labor
movement in the past several years. The growing
class consciousness among many white workers
narrows the gap with their Black co-workers.
There's more and more understanding of the
need for class solidarity, solidarity with the
struggles of labor's allies, the need for indepen-
dent class political action.

....In organizations such as NOW, we have to be
able to explain that lobbying is not just a less-
effective tactic; it's a wrong tactic. Lobbying
doesn't accomplish little; it's not even neutral. It
is harmful. It is counterproductive because it
diverts energies from useful activity.
This is not playing with words. If people go to
demonstrate in Washington, and as part of that
they raise some hell in the hallways of Congress,
and get on television, that's good. That's not
lobbying; it's a form of publicizing our demands.


But lobbying as a tactic simply institutional-
izes the course of relying on bourgeois politi-
cians. No bourgeois politician has ever done
anything for any section of the working class
because some lobbyist asked: "Would you do
this? We want this," or demonstrated he or she
was knowledgeable about the issues. That's not
how the capitalist politicians make their deci-
sions.

....We're about the only ones on the American left
who totally reject the nonsense about the country
moving right.


The "country's" not drifting to the right-
there's a class polarization taking place within
the country. There are signs of it every day. And
the more you are part of the American industrial
working class, the more you see it and under-
stand it.


It's certainly true that the Democrats and
Republicans are moving to the right. With their
system in a deep crisis, capitalist politicians like
Carter say things that Lyndon Johnson wouldn't
have dreamed of saying a decade ago. And
Carter will have to say more, and have to try to
do more-economically, militarily, politically.


Because the capitalists must continue their offen-
sive against working people around the world;
they have no choice. And while they can get
important help from the labor bureaucracy at
home, and Peking and Moscow abroad, they
ultimately have to do the job themselves.
A Mayor Gibson in Newark, a Mayor Kucinich
in Cleveland, a Mayor Young in Detroit, a
"socialist" Congressman Dellums, may talk a bit
more "left," but when push comes to shove, they
are owned by the banks. They bring down the
axe on schools, hospitals, jobs, raise taxes-
whatever the bankers need.


So, yes, the capitalist politicians are moving to
the right.


But the workers aren't. And neither are our
allies. They're looking for action. They're looking
for answers. And they're beginning to act-
whether misled, partially led, or just on their
own.


That's the guerrilla warfare we were talking
about at the beginning. As more and more SWP
members get into the steel plants, into the auto
factories, into the mines and rail yards, we are
learning this from our own experience.


It's what one steelworker official was referring
to when he talked to the Washington Post about
the shipyard workers in Newport News. "What a
guy used to put up with in the '30s and '40s, the
young guys today just aren't willing to put up
with," the official said.


And we could add that it doesn't just go for the
guys.

....Omari was right. In Weber, we have
something that could be five, ten, twenty times
bigger than the Bakke case. It goes right to the
heart of class politics. We don't know yet how
broad the movement around this can be. But the
Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, and
that sets off a certain dynamic.


….Mary-Alice [Waters] reminded me of something
else that is important for us to absorb the
meaning of. The American working class is more
advanced, by far, on this question of affirmative
action than workers anywhere else in the world ..
Affirmative action, as we understand the con-
cept, is practically nonexistent in other advanced
capitalist countries. There is no consciousness
that fighting to increase the number of women or
oppressed national minorities in industry streng-
thens the workers in their fight against the
employers. As inadequate as the gains have been here, there's nothing like them in Canada, Europe, Australia, and Japan. The labor movement in other countries is just more backward on this question, more influenced by the racist and sexist ideas promoted by the rulers.


This is because of the vanguard role of the
Black struggle in the United States and the
impact of the radicalization that came before the
period we're living through now. It's a precious
conquest of the early stages of this radicaliza-
tion. As a result, workers here have a potentially
powerful weapon. Because affirmative action is
solidarity. It is the strength our class needs to
fight. And this concept already exists, is already
part of this early stage of labor's fight for its
emancipation.

....The turn is not just for us. We think every fighting organization in this country should make the turn. Unless you do what we're doing-getting the overwhelming majority of our members into industry-you are going to be disoriented politically.


In order to see the political challenges and
opportunities today, in order to see the road
ahead, you have to understand what's happening
in the class struggle.


This is at the bottom of the crisis of perspec-
tives facing the Raza Onida Party, for instance.
This is what we must explain to the leaders and
members of the Raza Onida Party whom we
know and work with. We have to explain frankly
and clearly that this is where they have to orient,
or they will have no perspective to offer the
masses of Chicano working people in Texas.

....I think Mac [Warren] put it well when he pointed out that the ruling class sure doesn't think it's simply a preparatory period. That's a good point.
Even more important for us is the fact that a
significant layer of our class also knows that this
is not exactly a preparatory period. That's the
heart of the matter.


That's where virtually every other radical
group goes off the rails. They think it's important
to get elected to union office, instead of organiz-
ing around ideas and actions among the ranks of
the labor movement. That's like a decision to
abandon the fight to be a revolutionary socialist
in the unions.


That's why we stress the point that we can't
have our eyes on the secondary leaders or the
local leaders. We are looking to the ranks. And
we function as open socialists.
The truth of the matter is that every single one
of our opponents look to that layer, not to the
ranks of labor. That's where the Communist
Party looks. That's where the Maoists look.
That's where the International Socialists look.
The Social Democrats already look a little
higher, but they don't ignore the secondary lay-
ers.


Deep in their heart of hearts, a lot of these
petty-bourgeois radicals believe that Fraser and
Winpisinger are to the left of the American
workers. To you that sounds strange. It sounds
like an abomination. Because you are workers
who are thinking about strategy and tactics in
the battles today and the battles ahead.


But petty-bourgeois radicals who come into the
labor movement with a petty-bourgeois program,
get superimpressed with various competing indi-
vidual leaders, some more radical than others. It
wasn't just the Cochranites in our own party who
thought that the Reuther bureaucracy was miles
to the left of the auto workers in the fifties. This
kind of idea comes up with every brand of petty-
bourgeois political opponent today.
This is important to keep in mind. It helps to
reinforce where we're looking, and the axis that
we're on. It's all connected to the here and now.
That's what we're after.


movement, and they will come again. They will
become the dominant forms of struggle, and the
workers will have to cut through the red tape
with a few strokes. All the stuff with the lawyers
and arbitrators will fall by the wayside in com-
bat, class combat.


….of our opponents look to that layer, not to the
ranks of labor. That's where the Communist
Party looks. That's where the Maoists look.
That's where the International Socialists look.
The Social Democrats already look a little
higher, but they don't ignore the secondary lay-
ers.


Deep in their heart of hearts, a lot of these
petty-bourgeois radicals believe that Fraser and
Winpisinger are to the left of the American
workers. To you that sounds strange. It sounds
like an abomination. Because you are workers
who are thinking about strategy and tactics in
the battles today and the battles ahead.


But petty-bourgeois radicals who come into the
labor movement with a petty-bourgeois program,
get superimpressed with various competing indi-
vidual leaders, some more radical than others. It
wasn't just the Cochranites in our own party who
thought that the Reuther bureaucracy was miles
to the left of the auto workers in the fifties. This
What's at stake is challenging the thirty-year
web of class-collaborationist practices in the
labor movement. Farrell calls it miles of red tape.
He saw the genesis of a lot of it firsthand. You
get a picture of miles of red tape being wound
around the bodies of workers so they can't
breathe and can't move.


What did Mac say? Even when a worker gets
mad, what do they say to the steward? "File a
grievance. File a grievance for me."


Think about that for a minute. Isn't that a hell
of a state for the UAW to come to?


That's what is beginning to unravel. It will go
far beyond what we're seeing now. When the
workers very impolitely say, "Take the laws, take
the papers, take the grievance machinery, and
shove 'em."


Workers' real grievances are going to increase,
and they will have to be fought out with strikes
and picket lines against cops and company
goons. Those kinds of struggles built the labor
movement, and they will come again. They will
become the dominant forms of struggle, and the
workers will have to cut through the red tape
with a few strokes. All the stuff with the lawyers
and arbitrators will fall by the wayside in com-
bat, class combat.


….the gap between the radicalization among Black workers and the radicalization inside the rest of the working class has narrowed. That's not because Blacks have become less class conscious, but because whites
have become more class conscious. That's the
most positive thing in American politics.


The Black population has carried the U.S.
class struggle on its back for twenty years. It
started in the fifties with the rise of the civil
rights movement, and that began to transform
American society. It's taken us a long time to get
to where we are now.


But now we're here. And that's a wonderful
thing….