Re: [Marxism] Michael Moore and Wesley Clark

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Craven wrote:
> This will no doubt piss some people off, but I can understand why
> self-described "radicals"--and even self-described "Marxists"--might
> tactically hold their noses and support Clark--for some of the same
> reasons the Chinese Communist Party under Mao tried to form four
> separate alliances with the Kuomintang despite the fact that Kuomintang
> were far more bent on destruction of Communists than Japanese
> fascists--what was at stake versus the levels of development and
> organization and numbers of Communist forces against what they were
> standing up against.

But did Mao ever refer to Chiang in these terms? "General Clark told me
that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like
him who have to die if there is a war." That's what Michael Moore said.
Clark is the same guy who used depleted uranium shells in Yugoslavia. Moore
was respected by the left for his *truthfulness*. You would never find Mao
pimping for the KMT in this fashion. His approach could be best expressed
as "March separately, strike together".

> For some of them, realizing that the last election
> was "stolen" even in bourgeois terms, realizing that already millions
> have suffered horribly already and many millions more will suffer with
> this psychopathic and very dumb preppy punk in the White House--beyond
> anything the Dems could have produced or could likely produce--realizing
> that Bush has signalled his intention to develop perhaps the full and
> final development of fascism in the U.S. if he is re-selected, realizing
> that even the bourgeois "checks-and-balances" that can sometimes be used
> for tactical advantage are being destroyed by Bush and his minions,
> hold their noses and say simply there is too much at stake, there are
> too many ignorant, overfed and just plain dumb and selfish voters in the
> U.S. likely to go for Bush, that removal of Bush is imperative at all
> costs.

Jim, I can't see why Bush would need to seek a fascist solution. The
Democrats voted for his war in Congress (Kucinich himself only abstained).
Fascism generally arises when a parliamentary system can no longer maintain
the stability of the system and when the future of the system depends on
who can muster a more powerful armed force in the streets, like during the
Weimar Republic in 1929 or so. Nothing like this seems on the horizon.
Unfortunately, the American population is far too passive and apolitical to
constitute a threat to big business for the foreseeable future.

> I suspect that this may be the conclusion Michael Moore has come to and
> perhaps some of the reasons for coming to that conclusion. As for me,
> well I plan to revisit Georgi Dimitrov's speech to the Third Communist
> International on the building of the united front against fascism.

Don't forget that the anti-fascist front led to American Communists backing
the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII and the seizure of their
land and property, for which they have never been fully repaid. As well as
condemning a March on Washington for equal rights for blacks since it would
impede the war effort. Plus, attacks on strikes all the while that war
profiteering was taking on obscene dimensions.


Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism