RE: [Marxism] Cubans Believe Kerry Victory Would Benefit Island Nation

[Joaquín <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paddy Apling writes, "A re-election of Bush would be a disaster for the
whole world - including the USA - even though we know that Kerry looks to be
very VERY nearly as bad !!!"

I think U.S. imperialism right now is a disaster, never mind what is to
come. 

But history has its lessons: one of them is quite simply that you can't
judge how a bourgeois politician will respond in office by judging how he
responds on the campaign trail. This idea that we can somehow influence what
U.S. imperialism is going to do by "choosing" which chief executive the
imperialists appoint is goofy. 

First, imperialism is the system, not the policies. 

Second, the ostensible "policies" the candidates expound in a campaign are
an answer to the question, "What can I say that can fool the maximum number
of people into coming out and voting for me while not undermining or
mobilizing opposition to the fundamental interests and policy choices of my
class?" It is not an answer to the question "What would I do if I were in
office?" The answer to the latter question is ALWAYS based on another
question: "What can we get away with?" Whatever they can get away with,
that's what they do. 

As it turns out, Mr. Bush is quite demonstrably incompetent in answering the
latter question. He hasn't got a clue. He took about a quadrillion dollar's
worth of political capital given to him by Osama and his terrorists and
squandered it in a couple of years. He turned a cakewalk military victory in
Iraq into an occupation bordering on collapse, by leaving Baathists and
people who had been in the military or police or many state jobs prior to
the invasion no other option but to join the resistance, then alienating and
turning against them the followers of al Sadr, using artillery and aerial
bombardment against civilian population centers, etc. He even facilitated
the arming of the resistance by leaving huge caches of weapons and
explosives unguarded month after month. 

It may be true that having something like 300,000 or 400,000 troops in Iraq
would not succeed. But, clearly, if you don't have enough troops to AT LEAST
guard caches of hundreds of tons of high explosives, you clearly don't have
enough troops. And if you didn't even REALIZE they had gone missing, clearly
your lack of basic intelligence is catastrophic. And the most basic source
of intelligence on enemy resources and dispositions in simply the infantry.
Boots on the ground. 

So IF we are going to choose on that basis, then CLEARLY, beyond any
possible ambiguity, the choice must be for Mr. Bush. He has shown a level of
incompetence and just plain vulgar ignorance that is hard to match. He has
surrounded himself not with competent ruling-class operators but ideologues.
The evidence is overwhelming that even the Pentagon brass and CIA spooks
loathe the Bushites. That is the breeding ground for demoralization and a
breakdown in discipline, i.e., the elimination of the U.S. army in the field
as an effective fighting force. 

Is this a problem we should want to fix by having someone who can do what
Bush is trying to do, only with at least a modicum of competence?

Would John Forbes Kerry handle the imperialist invasion and occupation of
Iraq as badly as this gang? Would he have adopted a policy of OPENLY
creating torture camps like Guantanamo? Would he have Ashcroft arguing in
the courts, as he has been this past week, that the Help America Vote Act
means people no longer have the right to sue in federal courts to demand
their right to vote be respected?

I see no evidence of that. But the argument that he can handle imperialist
affairs BETTER than Bush is certainly no argument in his FAVOR from the
point of view of those who want to destroy the system.

Does this mean people should vote "ABK"? Of course not. Recognizing that
there are real differences between the two men is not at all decisive. Much
more important is to promote the idea and build a pole of political
independence. But before saying "so and so is the lesser evil" we should ask
ourselves, the lesser evil for whom? What is "better" for the imperialists
ain't necessarily so for us.

Joaquín




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