Post by hominid on Dec 12, 2004 12:35:19 GMT -5
Someone on another list asked some questions about how the struggle with Christian Fascism is conceived.
I will post my reply (but not the remarks of anyone else, since the list forbids that.)
Here was the question:
Does the RCP think that the U.S. workingclass is the only force needed (or involved) in the struggle to defeat imperialism?
What kind of broad front is possible against fascism and is it a front for defending and upholding "democracy" or what?
How does the RCP view the middle class and its political forces/trends/organizaitons/and other political expression?
Here was my initial answer: (Lemme know how it could have been done better, or what more we could add.)
hmmmm. This is a moment when I'm tempted to write "don't get me
started" -- since there is much to say and discuss about these things.
My most urgent concern these days is the actual analysis of "what is
happening in the U.S.?" Cuz it matters, and it even matters to the
whole world. And (frankly) there is a lot of "disbelief in sudden
turns" (that will, as lenin once pointed out, quickly become "panic
when the results become clear.") Put another way, there are a lot of
folks who still think "Hitler is a clown with a funny mustache and
his follwers are a bunch of buffoons and hapless bigots."
Many progressive people live in secular and liberal enclaves (the
socalled blue areas) and often, literally, "don't get it" -- either
where we are, or what is coming. Or they embrace a form of "political
truths" (i.e. wishful thinking) -- where sometimes the hope
overshadows hard analysis.
The heart of that analysis is in the document I shared and its
opening paragraphs:
"YOU THINK YOU KNOW... BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA... JUST WHAT BUSH HAS IN
STORE FOR... YOU... US... THE WORLD... OUR FUTURE!
"Straight up—Bush and his people aren't just ordinary Republicans.
And they're not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian
Fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious
dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way—
and they are very far along the road to getting it—society will be
plunged into a high-tech Dark Ages. Those who compare Bush to Hitler
are right! But, don't be waiting for people wearing little mustaches
and marching the Nazi goose-step to come to your town. This brand of
fascism is coming differently, and it's coming straight from the
White House."
I.e. there has been a force created that is not "politics as usual" --
it is NOT more of the same. And it is now tightening a long term
grip on power (not just white house, but congress, supreme court,
military officer corps, and now another wave of purge/transformation
within CIA and FBI etc. The new head of the Senate democrats -- by
the way -- is a rightwing mormon who is anti-abortion, so there is a
whole story to tell about where they are intending "to go" in a bid
to remain contenders in modern bourgeois politics! ) Not only do they
have a tightening grip on power, but in a profound way they
are "setting the agenda" -- and the Democrats limp behind, sliding
right, complaining, gesticulating, and putting on this-or-that piece
of extreme rightwing and religious coloration in a pathetic aping
process.
But you didn't ask about that part of the analysis, so I let me dig
into what you did ask, which was more formulatic, theoretical and
programmatic.
First, let me share a capsule summation: it is informally said in and
around the RCP, "neither Dutt nor Dimitrov."
To expand on that: it means that the RCP has never believed in
the "third period" strategic view of "class against class." Part of
applying MLM to a specific country is grasping the implications of
Mao's "unite all who can be united approach." The RCP has always
rejected the crude economism of that "working class only" approach
(and I mean always going back more than thirty five years.)
It also means that the RCP does not (now) assume Dutt's approach to
the approach of fascism (which was to ignore that a growing fascist
trend had a growing initiative within bourgeois politics, and to
insist, in a mechanical, blind and even stupid way, that the
bourgeois parties were all the same, and of equal danger, etc.)
The RCP approach of "No to Bush and all he represents" was a view
that there is a particular place where real dangerous changes and
initiatives are coming from, and even that the official imperialst
Democrat leadership are sharing in much of what "he represents."
In a strategic sense, the RCP has never been hostile to the middle
class (never shouting about "petty bourgeois this or that" in the
face of frank disagreements or whatever) -- and strategically has
always seen that (a) the broad middle classes are potential allies
that need to be won over as much as possible at eery point in the
revlutioanry process, (b) that socialism is in the interests of 90
percent of the population. (c) that the main target of the revolutoin
is the biggest bourgeoisie, and the most firm and reactioanry
supporters and props of the system (its armed enforcers, agents, and
whatever)
This is discussed and elaborated in many places -- and is a vision of
strategic repolarization in an imperialist country that is
not "borrowed" or "lifted" from any old comintern approaches, but
arises from the attempt to cratively apply Mao's advances in theory
and practice -- to the very different conditions of imperialist
countries (and the U.S. in particular).
The RCP has long viewed the process of revolutin in the U.S.
as "charting the uncharted course" -- by which Avakian meant (in
1979) that the old communist movement after lenin had not correctly
solved the key problems of carrying out a revolution in a country
like the U.S. (and in the specific case, of the CPUSA, had really not
ever tried all that seriously to make chart such a course).
One key place worth looking (if you want to dig deeper) is here:
rwor.org/chair_e.htm#ufulp (for the United Front component)
and rwor.org/a/chair/ask2e.htm for the RCP's conception
of "what is political work of preparation" (the central task
called "Create Public Opinion, Seize Power") which is in opposition
to economist and stageist methods.
As for your question of "broad front, democratic front" -- on one
level the answer is a firm and emphatic "yes."
However "it depends what you mean."
First, the RCP opposes a strategic conception of "uniting with one
wing of the bourgeoisie to defeat the fascist wing" (i.e. the core of
the Dimitrov United Front against Fascism, sometimes called popular
front.)
This is seen as "rightist errors of a fundamental kind."
And the goal is not (while defending important democratic rights and
the space for legality, etc.) to "get back to bourgeois democracy" --
since there are two things wrong with that: 1) we communists would be
forgetting what we are about and 2) we communists would be forgetting
what we are about.
We are about transforming the crimes and extremism and insanity of
this system (and its troubling rumbling rush toward worse and more)
as part of a process of revolution.
The conditions of approaching extremism and fascist madness
(rewriting the constitution to enshrine antigay bigotry, holding
people without trial or charges, enshrining extreme mindless
fundamentalism as a state religion in many ways and places, attacking
science (evolution, sex education etc.), all in the context of a
worldwide crusade led by fanatics who think they "talk to god) will
mean that more and new people/strata/forces are "open" to struggle
(and close work with revolutionary forces.) And the potential for
broad unity is more.
but the goal, the point, the purpose, of all this is to liberate
humanity -- and really only a movement that seriously thinks and
prepares for that can have a hope of grasping and defeating this
whole change in U.S. (and world) politics.
This has been both long (in one sense) and far too brief (in another).
But I hope you will let me know what isn't clear (in a spotterish
sense, of course).
I will post my reply (but not the remarks of anyone else, since the list forbids that.)
Here was the question:
Does the RCP think that the U.S. workingclass is the only force needed (or involved) in the struggle to defeat imperialism?
What kind of broad front is possible against fascism and is it a front for defending and upholding "democracy" or what?
How does the RCP view the middle class and its political forces/trends/organizaitons/and other political expression?
Here was my initial answer: (Lemme know how it could have been done better, or what more we could add.)
hmmmm. This is a moment when I'm tempted to write "don't get me
started" -- since there is much to say and discuss about these things.
My most urgent concern these days is the actual analysis of "what is
happening in the U.S.?" Cuz it matters, and it even matters to the
whole world. And (frankly) there is a lot of "disbelief in sudden
turns" (that will, as lenin once pointed out, quickly become "panic
when the results become clear.") Put another way, there are a lot of
folks who still think "Hitler is a clown with a funny mustache and
his follwers are a bunch of buffoons and hapless bigots."
Many progressive people live in secular and liberal enclaves (the
socalled blue areas) and often, literally, "don't get it" -- either
where we are, or what is coming. Or they embrace a form of "political
truths" (i.e. wishful thinking) -- where sometimes the hope
overshadows hard analysis.
The heart of that analysis is in the document I shared and its
opening paragraphs:
"YOU THINK YOU KNOW... BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA... JUST WHAT BUSH HAS IN
STORE FOR... YOU... US... THE WORLD... OUR FUTURE!
"Straight up—Bush and his people aren't just ordinary Republicans.
And they're not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian
Fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious
dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way—
and they are very far along the road to getting it—society will be
plunged into a high-tech Dark Ages. Those who compare Bush to Hitler
are right! But, don't be waiting for people wearing little mustaches
and marching the Nazi goose-step to come to your town. This brand of
fascism is coming differently, and it's coming straight from the
White House."
I.e. there has been a force created that is not "politics as usual" --
it is NOT more of the same. And it is now tightening a long term
grip on power (not just white house, but congress, supreme court,
military officer corps, and now another wave of purge/transformation
within CIA and FBI etc. The new head of the Senate democrats -- by
the way -- is a rightwing mormon who is anti-abortion, so there is a
whole story to tell about where they are intending "to go" in a bid
to remain contenders in modern bourgeois politics! ) Not only do they
have a tightening grip on power, but in a profound way they
are "setting the agenda" -- and the Democrats limp behind, sliding
right, complaining, gesticulating, and putting on this-or-that piece
of extreme rightwing and religious coloration in a pathetic aping
process.
But you didn't ask about that part of the analysis, so I let me dig
into what you did ask, which was more formulatic, theoretical and
programmatic.
First, let me share a capsule summation: it is informally said in and
around the RCP, "neither Dutt nor Dimitrov."
To expand on that: it means that the RCP has never believed in
the "third period" strategic view of "class against class." Part of
applying MLM to a specific country is grasping the implications of
Mao's "unite all who can be united approach." The RCP has always
rejected the crude economism of that "working class only" approach
(and I mean always going back more than thirty five years.)
It also means that the RCP does not (now) assume Dutt's approach to
the approach of fascism (which was to ignore that a growing fascist
trend had a growing initiative within bourgeois politics, and to
insist, in a mechanical, blind and even stupid way, that the
bourgeois parties were all the same, and of equal danger, etc.)
The RCP approach of "No to Bush and all he represents" was a view
that there is a particular place where real dangerous changes and
initiatives are coming from, and even that the official imperialst
Democrat leadership are sharing in much of what "he represents."
In a strategic sense, the RCP has never been hostile to the middle
class (never shouting about "petty bourgeois this or that" in the
face of frank disagreements or whatever) -- and strategically has
always seen that (a) the broad middle classes are potential allies
that need to be won over as much as possible at eery point in the
revlutioanry process, (b) that socialism is in the interests of 90
percent of the population. (c) that the main target of the revolutoin
is the biggest bourgeoisie, and the most firm and reactioanry
supporters and props of the system (its armed enforcers, agents, and
whatever)
This is discussed and elaborated in many places -- and is a vision of
strategic repolarization in an imperialist country that is
not "borrowed" or "lifted" from any old comintern approaches, but
arises from the attempt to cratively apply Mao's advances in theory
and practice -- to the very different conditions of imperialist
countries (and the U.S. in particular).
The RCP has long viewed the process of revolutin in the U.S.
as "charting the uncharted course" -- by which Avakian meant (in
1979) that the old communist movement after lenin had not correctly
solved the key problems of carrying out a revolution in a country
like the U.S. (and in the specific case, of the CPUSA, had really not
ever tried all that seriously to make chart such a course).
One key place worth looking (if you want to dig deeper) is here:
rwor.org/chair_e.htm#ufulp (for the United Front component)
and rwor.org/a/chair/ask2e.htm for the RCP's conception
of "what is political work of preparation" (the central task
called "Create Public Opinion, Seize Power") which is in opposition
to economist and stageist methods.
As for your question of "broad front, democratic front" -- on one
level the answer is a firm and emphatic "yes."
However "it depends what you mean."
First, the RCP opposes a strategic conception of "uniting with one
wing of the bourgeoisie to defeat the fascist wing" (i.e. the core of
the Dimitrov United Front against Fascism, sometimes called popular
front.)
This is seen as "rightist errors of a fundamental kind."
And the goal is not (while defending important democratic rights and
the space for legality, etc.) to "get back to bourgeois democracy" --
since there are two things wrong with that: 1) we communists would be
forgetting what we are about and 2) we communists would be forgetting
what we are about.
We are about transforming the crimes and extremism and insanity of
this system (and its troubling rumbling rush toward worse and more)
as part of a process of revolution.
The conditions of approaching extremism and fascist madness
(rewriting the constitution to enshrine antigay bigotry, holding
people without trial or charges, enshrining extreme mindless
fundamentalism as a state religion in many ways and places, attacking
science (evolution, sex education etc.), all in the context of a
worldwide crusade led by fanatics who think they "talk to god) will
mean that more and new people/strata/forces are "open" to struggle
(and close work with revolutionary forces.) And the potential for
broad unity is more.
but the goal, the point, the purpose, of all this is to liberate
humanity -- and really only a movement that seriously thinks and
prepares for that can have a hope of grasping and defeating this
whole change in U.S. (and world) politics.
This has been both long (in one sense) and far too brief (in another).
But I hope you will let me know what isn't clear (in a spotterish
sense, of course).