thread on fascism

[MundoQueGanar]

A new thread has started up on fascism--the participants are casting about for a definition. Do we have one we could offer that's on point?

cafeutne.org/motet/bin/motet?show+-ujgR5P+-ila+Politics+352+-25-

[kasam0]

let me mention some initial ideas:

Capitalist society is a dictatorship of the capitalist class.

But such dictatorships can take different political forms.

In some countries, the bourgeois class staged capitalist revolution against feudalism, and established their state through the 1800s and 1900s. In some of those countries, they established bourgeois democratic states -- their dictatorship was exercised through a system of elections, laws, constitutions, etc.

However, in times of acute crisis, change and even revolutnoary attempts -- when their rule is in question, where their legitimacy is in tatters, where they need to mobilize society in a grim and determined way for war -- the capitalist class has repeatedly turned to other *forms* of political rule.

In particular, fascism is the open terroristic dictatorship of the most powerful sections of the monopoly capitalist class.

(this is the definition adopted by the RCP.)

There are several things to say about this:

1) Capitaism is a dictatorship of the ruling class, no mater which particular form they adopt and use to impose their rule, policies and interests.

2) However in times of crisis and counterrevolution, the ruling class sometimes tried to drop its usual framework of legality and elections and "democratic rights" -- and rule in *openly* terroristic ways. They arrest critics wholesale, they suppress the press, they unleash vigilante gangs to kill opponents, they crush opposition organizations, they dump their old ways of ruling, they rewrite their laws -- all to exercise a more open, unrestrained, direct and brutal terror over the people.

3) This definition is in opposition to an older definition used by communists, which said "fascism is the open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary wing of the ruling class." this idea that there was a "most reactionary wing" suggested that there was also a "more progressive wing" that could be united with in a strategic sense.

This view (associated with Dimitrov, the Communist International in stalin's time) is criticized and rejected in the founding statement of the Revolutionary internationalist Movement:

"In 1935 an extremely important Congress of the Communist International was held in the midst of a severe world economic crisis, the growing threat of a new world war and imperialist attacks on the Soviet Union, the coming to power of fascism in Germany and the smashing of the German Communist Party, and the establishment of fascism or menace of the same in a number of other countries. It was necessary and correct for the Communist International to try to develop a tactical line concerning all of these questions.

Because the Seventh Congress of the Comintern has had such a deep influence on the history of the international movement it is necessary to make a sober and scientific evaluation of the Report of the Congress in the light of the existing historical conditions at the time. In particular the reasons for the defeat of the German Communist Party must be deeply studied. Nevertheless certain conclusions can be drawn now, and must be in light of the present tasks of today's Marxist-Leninists and three clear deviations must be identified.

First the distinction between fascism and bourgeois democracy in the imperialist countries, while certainly of real importance for the Communist Parties, was treated in a way that tended to make an absolute of the difference between these two forms of bourgeois dictatorship and also to make a strategic stage of the struggle against fascism. Secondly, a thesis was developed, which held that the growing immiseration of the proletariat would create in the advanced countries the material basis for healing the split in the working class and its consequent polarisation that Lenin had so powerfully analysed in his works on imperialism and the collapse of the Second International. While it is certainly true that the depth of the crisis undermined the social base of the labour aristocracy in the advanced capitalist countries and led to real possibilities that the Communist Parties needed to make use of to unite with large sections of the workers previously under the hegemony of the Social Democrats, it was not correct to believe that in any kind of a strategic sense the split in the working class could be healed. Thirdly, when fascism was defined as the regime of the most reactionary section of the monopoly bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries, this left the door open to the dangerous, reformist and pacifist tendency to see a section of the monopoly bourgeoisie as progressive.

While it is necessary to sum up these errors and to learn from them it is just as necessary to recognise the Communist International, including in this period, as part of the heritage of the revolutionary struggle for communism and to beat back liquidationist and

Trotskyite attempts to seize upon real errors to draw reactionary conclusions. Even during this period the Communist International mobilised millions of workers against class enemies and led heroic struggles against reaction such as the organising of the International Brigades to fight against fascism in Spain in which many of the best sons and daughters of the working class shed their blood in an inspiring example of internationalism. "

[kasam0]

Now, let's leave "definitions" aside....

And dig into the present:

The U.S. ruling class has unleashed a vast new offensive -- which involves an attempt to impose major changes in the world *and within the U.S.*

They call this "the war on terrorism" and claim it is caused by 9/11. But it is really something else: it is an attempt to take advantage of their current unprecedented military superiority to impose permanent U.S. domination over vast and strategic parts of the world.

As part of that, they are making major and historic changes in the way the U.S. operates internally. They have organized and elevated Christian Fascist elements, who want to wage and win "cultural wars" -- that change the range of allowable ideas and behaviors within the U.S. They are transforming legal norms in many ways: jailing people without trials or charges, increasing the powers of police surveillance, increasingthe power of the political exectutive (the white house), cnetralizing more and more power within one ruling party (the Republicans who now rule Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court and the Officer Corps) and much more.

This can and should be seen as a transition to more and more fascist forms of rule.

Some things to mention:
a) there is no change of class rule or class nature of the society in the transition of bourgeois democracy into fascism. The same ruling class is in power. the society remains capitalist in its production.

b) but it still makes a difference to the proletariat -- because fascism makes it harder to organize resistance and prepare for revolution. The proletariat opposes the moves to fascism -- which include as part of their target the revolution and revolutionary leadership. And it does this without in any way forgetting that its goal is not the preservation of bourgeois democracy, but the overthrow of capitalism and all class society.


Chairman Avakian has been sounding the alarm about this and making a penetrating analysis of why there is such a sharp rise of Christian Fascism and state repression, what their goals are, and how to fight them.

Here is a short, introductory piece:

rwor.org/a/1206/baresist.htm

A very important piece to read is here:
rwor.org/a/1255/avakian_clinton_right_wing_conspiracy.htm

It is worth digging into this, and examining the many different aspects of this.

This essay "The Pyramid of Power" -- describes how the Republican Party has developed and empowered a Christian Fascist social base -- and analyzes how the initiative within bourgeois politics is heavily in the hands of the extreme right (with the liberal bourgeois forces tailing them shamelessly, evenwhile complaining and shuttering)

rwor.org/a/1237/ba-pyramid2.htm

Finally: The REvolutionary Worker published a special issue analyzing this process of developing fascism within the U.S.:

rwor.org/badmoonrising/index.htm

[kasam0]

I also want to urge everyone to read AND DISTRIBUTE this leaflet:

rwor.org/a/1258/elections-editorial.htm

Which digs into the things that are keeping us all awake at night: where are we at, what is happening, how do we stop the steamroller of war and fascism!!

This leaflet opens with a very important sumation:

"yes, it is as bad as you think. Almost certainly, it is worse."

This is a very important and sobering assessment.
And we need to dig into it together.

Are progressive people mainly "freaking out" without reason (as Serivian seemed to suggest on Che-lives) -- or is the main problem that many people still "don't get" how serious this moment is, how determined the ruling class is to push ahead with extreme changes, and how quickly this could happen?

Chairman avakian wrote in New Situations and Challenges, shortly after 9/11/01: (http://rwor.org/a/v23/1140-1147/1143/ba-newsituation.htm)

THINGS ARE BOUND TO BE VASTLY DIFFERENT...THE AMERICA WE HAVE KNOWN WILL NOT EXIST IN THE SAME WAY ANYMORE

As I spoke to earlier, there are both things that the U.S. imperialists have had on their agenda and had on track for a while which they put on the fast track, and there are also real contradictions and real necessity and real forces opposing them that they have to deal with. They have both freedom and necessity, and both have taken a new shape in the aftermath of September 11. And while we must grasp this as fully as we can at this point, and act on this, it is also important for us to continue digging into this and learn more about the dynamics driving them, the underlying material economic forces, the political and geostrategic factors, and the interconnection of these different economic, political, and social forces.

But a crucial point to emphasize here again is the imperialists have set things in motion that can't be easily reversed, and may not be easily controlled. And we can say with a great deal of certainty that at the end of all this—whenever and however what has been set in motion is finally resolved—things are bound to be and will be vastly different, not only internationally, but also within what has been the United States. Whether in a very terrible way, or in a very positive way in terms of the advance of the proletarian revolution worldwide, and perhaps even getting to the point where power is seized by the masses of the people in the U.S. itself—things will be radically different and the America we have known will not exist in the same way anymore.


----------------------------------------------------------------

I think all of this needs to be discussed and debate much much more. And Quickly! And with utmost seriousness and urgency!

[redstar2000SE]

The Revolutionary Internationalist Movement wrote: Secondly, a thesis was developed, which held that the growing immiseration of the proletariat would create in the advanced countries the material basis for healing the split in the working class and its consequent polarisation that Lenin had so powerfully analysed in his works on imperialism and the collapse of the Second International. While it is certainly true that the depth of the crisis undermined the social base of the labour aristocracy in the advanced capitalist countries and led to real possibilities that the Communist Parties needed to make use of to unite with large sections of the workers previously under the hegemony of the Social Democrats, it was not correct to believe that in any kind of a strategic sense the split in the working class could be healed.

Perhaps the 7th Congress was looking for a "theoretical" justification for what was pretty obviously a tactical maneuver.

But for what it's worth, in Germany workers were voting more often for the KPD and less for the SPD as the crisis deepened there. Unfortunately, they didn't move organizationally away from the SPD.

Bob Avakian wrote: But a crucial point to emphasize here again is the imperialists have set things in motion that can't be easily reversed, and may not be easily controlled. And we can say with a great deal of certainty that at the end of all this--whenever and however what has been set in motion is finally resolved--things are bound to be and will be vastly different, not only internationally, but also within what has been the United States. Whether in a very terrible way, or in a very positive way in terms of the advance of the proletarian revolution worldwide, and perhaps even getting to the point where power is seized by the masses of the people in the U.S. itself--things will be radically different and the America we have known will not exist in the same way anymore.

So?

If it's going to be open fascism, then we're screwed. There's nothing even remotely on the scene in the U.S. that's comparable to the resistance of the KPD to the Nazis.

Can you picture the members of the RCYB beating up Christian fascists in the streets?

The streets of Dallas, that is.

On the other hand, if it's just "more of the same" (a "drift" towards fascism rather than a "drive" towards it), then it is, at least in principle, reversible (to some unknown degree).

Frankly, I don't think that clerical fascism is a viable option for the ruling class...however temporarily useful they might find its rhetoric.

In a fundamental sense, capitalism is secular...the maximization of profit trumps all other motives.

An openly "imperial ideology" is something that the American ruling class has yet to develop -- though they've been working on it. And it remains to be seen who will salute it when they run it up the flagpole...what kind of mass social base can they find which will enthusiastically support it.

Could we discredit such an ideology before it has a chance to really get off the ground?

Are the Iraqis discrediting it on the ground already?

Meanwhile, what is needed from groups that claim the "vanguard role" is more clarity. If something "urgently needs to be done", what is it?

It's no use asking people to feel "a sense of urgency" unless you have urgent proposals to put forward.

To say that "big things are about to happen" is not very helpful...or even interesting.

[flyby2]

redstar2000 said: "It's no use asking people to feel "a sense of urgency" unless you have urgent proposals to put forward."

Which of course is true. Which is why revolutionaries and progressive people are huddled, debating, strategizing everywhere.

Which is why the RCP leaflet is being distributed in the tens of thousands (since even to call for such a struggle and urgency is part of what needs doing.)

A big part of "what needs doing" is exactly working together with others to identify things to do, networking to do, actions to take, bases on which to unite. It is not something you can simply "announce" -- since the process of unity (and also of leadership) is more than just decrees.

At the same time, I won't point out that Redstar (once again) basically argues there is nothing to do: "If it's going to be open fascism, then we're screwed... Can you picture the members of the RCYB beating up Christian fascists in the streets?"

Oops, I guess i did point it out.

On the contrary: I think there is much we can and must do. It is quite conceivable that the millions (literally millions) who are horrified by this direction (and who are not organized, or more actually mis-organized by Democratic electoral framework) can be mobilized, organized, led.

And while i don't think the core of a strategy is for the hardcore communists to take on Christian Fascists alone -- i can certainly imagine intense and direct struggle with these fucks -- street by street, town by town, campus by campus, and not just "in the blue states." You think Dallas has no oppressed people? no immigrant workers? No black community? no pregressive students?

Places like Dallas may be a stronghold of the reactionary juggernaut -- and we may not win first in their strongholds.

But the idea of mocking resistance, of declaring AHEAD OF TIME, that we are too weak to dream of fighting and defeating them.... well the content and impact of that kinda speaks for itself. And (frankly) must be argued with, exposed and defeated as part of the process of making ANY progress.

Redstar likes to say how little difference the Republicans and Demcrats are, but here he shows how his view is exactly the defeatist and demoralized assumptions of the Democratic loyalists -- "nothing to do," "they are too strong," "their grip in much of the country is consolidating" (i.e. like in Dallas.)

No to leftist couch-potato defeatism!
No petty complaints! No whining!
No mix of both pooh-pooing the danger, and then pessimistically dissing the potential for any resistance!

And lets be scientific and serious about understanding the link between capitalism and this Christian Fascist wave.

I think there is an interesting comment in RS's post, saying that capitalism is essentially secular -- i think this is basically wrong, but is worth examining.

They need science, but they also need dogmatic and fascistic religion. They are clearly promoting, mobilizing and financing these religious fanatics, and hoisting prominent ones to power (including the white house itself).

In fact, if you think theseChristian fascists are not getting a powerful wind from the system, its ruling class, and if you think they are not "proving useful" (more than in a short-term tactical sense, but in a way that went from the margins to the the centers of power) i repeat what others have said: "you are just not paying attention."

Hitler was also not a "perfect" fit for capitalism's many needs. He too was accused of "promoted irrationality," in a war effort that needed both hype, singlemindedness but also careful planning. Do you want to claim that Hitlerian Fascism also was not compatable with capitalism?

[MundoQueGanar]

Here's my latest post to that thread:

Well, I'd like to zero back in on the topic of the thread, "What is fascism?" We're getting accusations flying around here about people being "hyperbolic" and "emotional". The problem with these accusations is not whether or not people are emotional about the horrid state of things, but the dangerous and implicit assumption is that we cannot KNOW whether or not it is accurate to say that we are moving in a fascistic direction. The OBJECTIVE TRUTH of a given situation is not often easily grasped, especially when we're soaking in it, so to speak, and the misinformfation and half-assed opinions around us are so dominant. But objective truth does exist, and we ARE capable of knowing it or at least approximating it. (I know that this will be a controversial idea to some.)
I've offered a few concrete reasons as to why it is TRUE that we are moving in the direction of fascism. I'll elaborate. The PATRIOT Act was a bold expansion of policies that had their roots in previous attacks on civil liberties, especially Clinton's Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (EDPA as it's usually known) which curtailed the rights of two of society's most vulnerable groups, immigrants and death row inmates. Almost no one spoke out for these groups when the EDPA was passed.

Of course the PATRIOT Act took things much farther and broadened its scope by giving "terrorism" the loosest of definitions, but again the very first victims have been those whom very few have spoken out to defend: Arab, Muslim, and South Asian immigrants. Tens of thousands have been detained, and thousands have been deported with no connection whatsoever to 9/11 or any other terrorist plots.

Meanwhile I think we can all think of our own examples of how Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians have been demonized and scapegoated since 9/11. One of my "favorites" was the fundamentalist General William Boykin's comments that the US would win because the Christian God is a real god and the Muslim God is a false one. (There's more to this--as the recent book "Making the Corps" points out, the military is coming to be dominated by an increasingly ideologically fundamentalist officer corps. This is a dangerous devlopment in itself.) There's also the example of a Muslim woman in my hometown who was viciously attacked by the police in a Wal-Mart as many onlookers laughed. That's some scary shit.

So what is happening is that as policies are handed down from the heights of power, a social base is being built up from the "grassroots" that is encouraged and funded by the most powerful forces in the government and the bourgeoisie. (That's what the article I posted by Bob Avakian pointed out--I find it interesting that instead of taking on its content, Andre chose instead to focus on its tone This won't do, as it doesn't get us any closer to understanding the truth.)

All of this is taking place, as I pointed out before, in the midst of a global power grab for control of the world's major energy resources. Both this power grab, and the emerging police state at home, are being justified in the name of a "war on terror". It's pure, unmitigated bullshit.

I'll go back (again) to what I first said about the nature of fascism--and that is that capitalist society is the dictatorship of the capitalist class, and that that dictatorship can take different forms. To go on and quote more directly from the definition used by the Revolutionary Communist Party (of which I am a supporter), "n times of acute crisis, change and even revolutionary attempts -- when their rule is in question, where their legitimacy is in tatters, where they need to mobilize society in a grim and determined way for war -- the capitalist class has repeatedly turned to other *forms* of political rule. In particular, fascism is the open terroristic dictatorship of the most powerful sections of the monopoly capitalist class."

It is obvious to me that the most powerful sections of the US ruling class are backing the dismantling of decades-old civil liberties, while at the same time funding the rise of a fundamentalist movement against rational thought at the base. I think that it is absolutely resonable and in fact NECESSARY to recognize these moves and call them for what they are: fascist.

[redstar2000SE]

flyby2 wrote: They need science, but they also need dogmatic and fascistic religion. They are clearly promoting, mobilizing and financing these religious fanatics, and hoisting prominent ones to power (including the white house itself).

In fact, if you think these Christian fascists are not getting a powerful wind from the system, its ruling class, and if you think they are not "proving useful" (more than in a short-term tactical sense, but in a way that went from the margins to the the centers of power) I repeat what others have said: "you are just not paying attention."

Hitler was also not a "perfect" fit for capitalism's many needs. He too was accused of "promoted irrationality," in a war effort that needed both hype, singlemindedness but also careful planning. Do you want to claim that Hitlerian Fascism also was not compatible with capitalism?

No one would argue that the Nazi variant of fascism was not briefly "compatible" with capitalism. Nevertheless, it was, in fact, "too irrational" to be useful for any extended period of time. The Reich was running into economic difficulties by the late 1930s; had there been no war, I think it would have been "reformed" by the 1950s or so.

In any event, we've seen that no other capitalist ruling class has seen any benefit to following that particular variant of fascism.

One could argue that the American ruling class is choosing to "pump up" Christian fascism because "it's the only game in town"...much as German capitalists picked Nazism.

Perhaps that's the "correct analysis".

Nevertheless, there are capitalist ideologues attempting to develop an "imperial ideology" that is entirely secular and "rational".

For example, you might want to have a look at Colossus: The Price of America's Empire by Niall Ferguson.

Ferguson, a newly-minted professor at Harvard, is evidently tabbed for "intellectual stardom" -- he's even had his picture on the front cover of Time as "one of the world's most influential figures".

Ferguson's thesis is a simple one: all human progress is a product of empire.

Thus American business and political leaders should not be "shame-faced" over imperialism but "proud of it" -- America has been chosen by history to be the torch-bearer of human progress in the centuries to come. Americans should openly embrace a mission to govern the world in the name of all that's "civilized".

He also thinks that America's rhetoric about "democracy" is both wrong and counter-productive; the rule of markets and corporations is what is really "worthwhile".

And so on. In my opinion, this is the kind of fascism that the American ruling class would find really useful -- if they could win a mass base for it.

And that, of course, remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, you still think that Christian fascism is the main danger.

Ok, that suggests two possible frameworks in which opposition might be focused.

1. A furious attack on religion itself...especially Christianity. The "line" would be that it's all reactionary bullshit. Prominent Christian fascists would not be able to make a public appearance without being greeted with noisy, hostile, and at least moderately violent demonstrations. Rocks and bottles would be thrown, etc.

2. A "united front" with "moderate" and "liberal" Christians. The "line" would be that Christian fascism is "a deadly attack on Christianity itself". Nonviolent civil disobedience involving very large numbers of people would be the tactic that would most appeal to those folks...you could even conduct "sit-ins" at right-wing church services and directly "witness" against Christian fascism. If they set their goons on you, so much the better...their own following would get to see their "un-Christian behavior".

Don't imagine, by the way, that you can use both of those frameworks...you would quickly be "busted".

Now, I've offered you two constructive alternatives...two strategic frameworks in which to construct a resistance movement against Christian fascism.

What do you offer?

[kasam0]

Interesting:

On E-G message board, the Dimitrov rightist definition of fascism is explicitly upheld: ""The open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital."

www.ernesto-guevara.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2694

And once again this is described as "classic Marxism" -- as if Marxism is not a living science, but a bunch of dusty classics to be treated like religious texts.

Interestingly, right after upholding the rightist (and wrong) analysis of Dimitrov, the guy (Subversive Rob) tacks on a second, wrong sumation of fascism, saying "I would further add that fascist movements are traditionally petit bourgeois radicals."

Sometimes fascism has mass movements rooted among sections of the masses (like the Klan, or todays Christian Fascist movement in the U.S.) -- but in other cases like Chile it was rooted in the bourgeois army and a military coup.

the fact is that fascism is a form of rule by the most powerful sections of the ruling class -- even as it inevitably requires the creation of forces to carry out and enforce the changes.

[kasam0]

two things jump out at me:

1) their method of "studying marxism" is treating it as "classics" -- to be excavated uncritically as revealed truth.

2) The result of this method is to put forward an extremely mistaken and flawed definition of fascism, that played an important role in transforming the communist movements (especially in the imperialist countries) from revolutinary movements to slavish, pathetic bourgeois democratic movements (that were seeking to unite strategically with parts of the ruling class).

[1949]

The thing is, a lot of E-G people don't view fascism as authoritarian capitalism, they view it as capitalism with a heavily regulated economy, like Mussolini's Italy. They make a distinction (that doesn't exist) between Nazism and fascism, and between Suharto and Pinochet style regimes and fascism, based on economic differences between them. And in doing so they uphold (what they consider) fascism as more progressive than laissez-faire capitalism!

Here is another thread they had on the subject: Fascist Manifesto

[MundoQueGanar]

My latest post in that thread--the thread started getting into whether or not our "democratic institutions
were strong enough to withstand extremes to the left or right".

I think we need to get a little more precise in our understanding of what sort of system we live under now, before we can see that calling the current drift of American politics "fascist" IS a precise diagnosis.

The key piece that's missing from most of our discussion so far is that capitalism in its "normal functioning" (i.e., times of relative peace and prosperity) requires a form of dictatorship. It's what we Marxists call "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"--that is, the bourgeoisie control all of the the economic base (the means of the production of their wealth) as well as all of the superstructure (the media, the legal system, elections, etc.) in a way that gives the illusion that we have a say in the major issues we face, when in reality our input is marginal at best. They exercise this dictatorship in the interests of their class. Look at the last elections for a very good example of this last point--by the time we got to vote for president, the only choice we got to make was which candidate would get to be commander-in-chief in the hyped-up and bullshit "war on terror", which I think most of us agree is a PR term for a war for oil and empire. So that's how the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie works--we don't run a damn thing, but we're made to feel like we do. It's a more nuanced form of dictatorship which relies heavily on propaganda from the bourgeois media to work.

Fascism, on the other hand, is just the dictatorship of the bougeoisie in a different form, and is what ruling classes have resorted to when facing mounting external and internal pressures. Right now, the interimperialist rivalries between the big imperialist blocs (European and Asian) are very intense, and the US ruling class has been divided over how to maintain its dominance. The forces grouped around Bush/Cheney (the Project for a New American Century, and others) decided that Clinton had not taken advantage of the opportunity for expansion and domination provided by the collapse of the old, rotten Soviet Union, and took 9/11 as their chance to "go for it". They realized that this course would require a simultaneous crackdown on the people of this country--you can't just go to war and expect the people who have no fundamental interest in your profits to do your fighting for you, not to mention expect that the descendents of the countries in your cross-hairs that live within your borders won't have some problem with that. So people have to be further urged and even forced into acquiescence.

Some strata, including the more privileged groups in society, and those who've been brainwashed by reactionary Christianity, are won over to the new program through the bourgeois media (and with groups like Fox and Sinclair playing the vaguard role) who toe the line (and lies) of the bourgeoisie. Other strata face the direct control of the security forces. I've mentioned before how Muslim, Arab, and South Asian immigrants have already borne the brunt of this new security prerogative, but it's also true that police brutality and murder has skyrocketed since 9/11 (see the October 22nd Coalition against Police Brutality www.october22.org for more on this).

At the same time, the reactionary, fundamentalist Christian forces who now have more access to the heights of power through the Bush administration, are building up a reactionary grassroots movement that is dead set against rational thought and takes the form of cadre organization. The Promise Keepers are a good example of this type of group. Merely ratcheting up the propaganda is not enough to carry through their agenda--though propaganda plays a key role--they need "shock troops" on the ground as well. These forces are being built up.

The idea that "our democratic institutions are strong enough to withstand extremes to the left and right" (I'm paraphrasing) doens't capture what's going on here. The "democratic institutions" were never really "ours" to begin with; they have always been instruments of bourgeois dictatorship. As such, they can be dispensed with whenever the ruling class finds them to be an impediment to their needs. (Though it is correct to say that they have always been strong enough to withstand pressures from the left--in fact, that's what they're there for.)

So as Bob Avakian points out in "the New Situation and the Great Challenges" rwor.org/a/v23/1140-1147/1143/ba-newsituation.htm , this presents us with enormous challenges, but if we grasp things correctly and are down for struggle, there is enormous potential for revolutionary change that puts the people in the driver's seat as well. The good thing is that objectively, the current course of the ruling class is NOT in the interests of the majority of the people of this country (much less the people of the world). That gives us a very strong basis for turning the current attacks into a strong counter-attack that seeks not only to roll back the fascistic moves, but to go even further, even toward revolution.

I feel that the struggle for people to take up and wield a scientific world outlook embodied by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is crucial--we need to be able to cut through the bullshit to be able to act in our own interests.