[Marxism] Bush's election has settled nothing

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Socialist Voice is put out by a number of  activists in the Canadian
labor movement, several of whom were formerly associated with the
Communist League of Canada and the Socialist Workers Party in the United
States.
Fred Feldman

***********************************************************
              S O C I A L I S T   V O I C E
 Debate and dialogue on issues before the workers movement

Number 21, November 8, 2004          www.socialistvoice.com
***********************************************************

Editors' Note: Readers are encouraged to forward or distribute issues of
Socialist
Voice. Please contribute comments and criticisms, subscribe, or
unsubscribe by
writing: socialistvoice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx All issues of Socialist Voice are
available at
www.socialistvoice.com. --Roger Annis and John Riddell


BUSH'S ELECTION HAS DECIDED NOTHING
By Fred Feldman

Nothing has been decided by the U.S. presidential election, except the
choice of
the dominant wing of the U.S. ruling class.

The imperialists are neither nearer nor farther from their goal of
suppressing Iraq.
The Cuban revolution is neither nearer or farther from being overthrown.
The
Venezuelan revolution is still advancing, not retreating. Gay rights are
neither
nearer or farther from being decisively victorious or defeat. The
economy
remains parlous, the recovery weak and partially counteracted, and
international
competition fierce.

An assault on social security and other attacks on working people are
sure to
gain momentum, but this is due to the low level of resistance from
labor, the
oppressed nationalities, and women, not to the outcome of the vote
count. The
crisis of orientation of the Bush administration is neither nearer nor
further from
being resolved.

What Are Elections For?

The purpose of elections in imperialist democracy is to manufacture
consent,
reinforce and preserve backwardness, and undermine self-confidence and
independence of the oppressed and exploited in their own power to make
change. And these elections have done their job.

Bush has a mandate to rule, but it comes not from the voters but from
the ruling
class. It expects him to show more finesse in dealing with the
competition and
resistance Washington faces abroad, while continuing the ruthless
attacks on our
living standards and democratic rights.

For the next fairly brief period, the rulers and their media will unite
to sell us the
New Popular Bush who cannot be defied. But Bush has yet to decisively
win any
battle where he has faced real mass resistance.

Nor, of course, have the imperialists yet been decisively defeated in
any such
battle. Now the Iraqis will be told, "See, you must bow to the
occupation for
Super-Bush cannot be defeated." The Iranians will be told that they
cannot
defend their sovereignty. The Venezuelans will be told to drop any idea
of taking
the land. The Cubans are being told, "You will suffer more without end."
DON'T
BELIEVE IT. THE U.S. RULERS ARE GETTING WEAKER.

Why Kerry Lost

We should remember how imperialist-democratic politics work. The defeat
of
Kerry did not occur he supported the war or failed to speak to the
concerns of
workers. Kerry's prowar, antiworker stand was what made him acceptable
to the
bourgeoisie as a possible alternative. And given the problems that Bush
has run
into internationally, plus oil prices and the favorable competitive
position that the
Euro has won against the dollar, that alternative seemed attractive to
many of the
rulers. But in the end, they feared the results of changing the
president--which
might have made sections of the masses feel stronger and more
confident--more
than the consequences of Bush's inadequacies, which they can deal with
in other
ways if this proves necessary.

But if Kerry had in fact talked against the war or used a lot of
populist pro-worker
demagogy, the bourgeoisie would have sunk him without a trace, just as
they
sunk George McGovern's campaign in 1972. The elections did not provide a

referendum on the war, because the bourgeoisie do not allow these
matters to be
decided that way. There was no vote for the war by the masses, because
imperialist democracy provides them no say on that matter whatsoever.

We have to fight every trace of the idea that the function of the
working people in
politics is to provide voting cattle for the liberals and deny this to
the
conservatives. We must oppose fulmination against white workers (or
others)
who voted for the Republicans rather than the Democrats. We must reject
the
idea that workers who vote Republican "vote against their interests"
while
workers who vote Democratic "do not." That concept is the way to keep
running
in the mouse cage of imperialist democracy.

Given the absence today of working-class struggle, or its very low
level, most
workers retreat. They turn inward to their families and communities.
Yes, they
can fear change. Religion--never absent, I might add, under capitalist
(that is,
pre-communist) conditions--gets stronger.

Impact of Inpouring Profits

In addition, the United States and the working class is tremendously
affected and
partly shaped by the inpouring of profits from the colonial world that
shape the
society and affect all layers of all classes. These profits shape the
racist
stratification of peoples and are the reason why the imperialist
two-party system
has been able to maintain its monopoly position for the last hundred
years. It is a
myth that these benefits touch only white workers or only the labor
aristocracy,
and even more of a myth that they touch only those who vote Republican.

The United States is a privileged nation in the world, as a consequence
of its
substantial and ongoing world hegemony. Empty moralizing and fulmination

about the white workers as the sole recipients of privilege is
incorrect, worthless
politically, and ultimately reactionary. And limiting this denunciation
to those who
vote Republican--the others are OK--is electoralism carried to the
absurd.

The benefits of imperialist domination do affect the whites, including
workers,
disproportionately. But all classes of all nationalities are affected,
not just
workers, and not just workers of the dominant nationality. After all,
the reason
why all the immigrants come here is to be in the places that imperialist

superprofits go rather than the places from which they are taken. They
need a
piece of that action, and many of them--like the rest of us--do get
some.

If you want to reach out only to those who are not affected to some
degree by the
vast wealth pouring in, you have to live in the countries from which the
wealth is
coming. Imperialist superprofits--along with the class struggles we have
waged--
is the reason why we have been able to make any progress at all in
winning,
through struggle, any safety net from the imperialist rulers, as
compared to the
situation in Indonesia or the Philippines or central Africa.

Workers of all nationalities do carry out progressive anti-imperialist
struggles
today, such as the fight to organize unions. The importance of unions
lies not in
their small or large numbers but in the desperate need of the working
class for
these basic organizations that confront the employer on the job.
Nationalist
organizations, revolutionary organizations, youth organizations,
academic
societies, and so on cannot do this job. The unions are small today.
That just
means that in any general rise of struggle today, unions--whether the
ones we
have now or new ones arising out of struggle--will grow tremendously.

The answer to this election and its outcome does not lie in winning more
votes
for the next Kerry or in a civil war to crush the atavistic "red
states." The answer
lies in more class struggle by workers farmers, students, Blacks,
Chicanos,
immigrants against exploitation, repression, discrimination, and war.

Gay Marriage Debate

The fight for gay rights has proven to be a significant and long-term
component
of this process. It is extremely important not to exaggerate the setback
to gay
rights represented by the victory of anti-gay marriage referenda in 11
states. The
idea of gay marriage exploded into the consciousness of tens of millions
of
people this year for the first time in their lives and in U.S.
history--and, for that
matter, the history of the modern world.

Given the newness and apparent strangeness of the idea for those
encountering
it for the first time, plus the continuing depth of prejudices of all
kinds maintained
by class society, it was a foregone conclusion that the reactionary
referenda
would be successful this year. It was an easy victory for the
Republicans, and a
handy assist toward the primary goal of helping re-elect Bush.
Supporters of gay
rights countered with protests, educational campaigns, court actions,
and highly
visible actions such as the defiant and proud weddings in San Francisco.

Of course, the top Democratic candidates gave no support to this fight.
Clinton
and others are now insisting that the Democratic Party must become more
antigay, more anti-abortion, more antilabour, and more prowar to regain
the
"heartland"--that is, to win the heart of the billionaire families who
have preferred
the Republicans to the Democrats in six of the last nine elections.

While gays have been victimized by the constitutional amendment
operation,
people are now being made aware in an unprecedented way of a new and
important question of equality, non-discrimination, and democratic
rights. The
referenda are not a decisive setback for the gay movement, but the
beginning of
a fight that has a positive future, especially if other class battles at
home and
abroad grow stronger in the coming years. From the standpoint of working

people, the fight for gay marriage was vastly more important than which
of their
enemies won this election.

Basis for an Alternative

Imperialism, reaction, and backwardness won the election. This is hardly

surprising. The U.S. political system is the ideal one for imperialism,
and in this
setup, only imperialism, reaction, and backwardness can win such
contests.

The people who voted for Nader are not the base of a future mass party
of the
oppressed and exploited in this country--any more than those who voted
for Bush
are the mass base of fascism. Some of the Nader supporters may be won to

activism on behalf of working people. But the major benefit of the Nader

campaign was not that it forged the base of a new mass party but as
propaganda
against the two-party imperialist trap.

It is the mass of the oppressed and exploited themselves who provide the
basis
for a real alternative, which will arise not primarily out of polemics
against people
who vote for the capitalist parties, but out of massive class struggles.



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