[Marxism] conspiracy: credulous left of today

["Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Louis Proyect:

This is fresh on my mind since I just submitted a review of Max Frankel's
book on the Cuban missile crisis to the URPE journal. In reality, the USA
came away as the big winner in the crisis. Russia removed its missiles,
while outdated US missiles were removed from Turkey. Plus, the fact that
this unequal exchange was taking place was suppressed in the mass media. JFK
came away the conquering hero, while Khruschchev reputedly was ousted for
placating imperialism.


^^^^^^
CB: I disagree with this assessment. Looking at the situation like a lawyer
bargaining, I see the Soviet missiles that were to be "in" Cuba as a
bargaining chip which the Soviets gave up to prevent a U.S. invasion of
Cuba. And it worked. 40 years later and still no U.S. invasion of Cuba.  The
Soviet missiles were just getting to  Cuba. What the Soviets gave up was the
future establishment of missiles in Cuba, a future possibility , for a
concrete current protection of Cuban independence.

More importantly, I think the fascist edge of the U.S. power structure read
it the way I am. A _defeat_ for the U.S. From their standpoint , Kennedy
should have stopped the missiles _and_ invaded Cuba. You underestimate the
radicality of the reaction of that sector of the U.S. ruling class at that
time.

And just as importantly to the U.S. fascist sector, Kennedy agreed to a Test
Ban Treaty with the Soviets . This was clearly treasonous to the
anti-Communist fanatics of that era. It was cowardice, compromising with the
Communist devils.  To measure this , one would have to review John Birch
Society lit and the like of the time. For them lots of liberals of the time
, who we know to be firmly in the capitalist camp, were pinko traitors.

^^^^^

Assassination is an extreme measure. It is a symptom of extreme political
divisions in the ruling class, but the two parties were more united in
general political perspectives in the late 1950s and early 60s than they
have been up till now.

^^^^^
CB: Yes, and it is a measure of the level of crisis of the U.S. ruling class
in this period that they turned to assassination so much.

The Kennedy assassination "sides" did not correspond to two bourgeois
parties. Which is to say the coup plotters were not "Republicans".  Johnson
was in the same party as Kennedy, and he replaced Kennedy. This was a
division in the ruling class between the most, reactionary, most chauvinist,
etc. sector and other sections, but the division between Dem and Rep does
not correspond this division. The most reactionary sector, or a rump group
from it, decided on a coup.  The whole ruling class became complicit when
they participated in the coverup ( Warren Commission etc.)

This is also important to broadcast, because so much of U.S. bourgeois
propaganda emphasizes that the U.S. "doesn't" have coup d'etats, that it is
the model of democracy.

^^^^^^^


Keep in mind that JFK attacked Nixon from the right
as being too soft on Communism in 1960. He was doing the same thing that
JFKerry was doing last year when he lambasted Bush for not making a
sufficient investment in Iraq to win the war.

You really need to go back and read the speeches of bourgeois politicians of
the period. They were more united than divided. On domestic policies, the
Democrats were seen as somewhat more progressive on civil rights but in many
ways JFK was doing nothing except continuing along the path
established by Eisenhower.

^^^^^^
CB: I think Malcolm X made us all familiar with the critique of the
Kennedys'  and Democrats' civil rights record in the period.

My analysis of the assassination does not rely on the Democrats and
Republicans being far apart on the issues you discuss here. That fact is not
relevant to my argument. The assassination shows the depth of reaction in
the most right wing,non-partisan sector of the bourgeoisie.  The aspects of
unity of Dems and Reps you mention is too simplistic a look at the
situation. Again, Johnson was a Democrat, so the standard "Dem-Rep Tweedle
Dee -Tweedle Dum" critique is not cogent in analyzing the assassination.  In
other words, the rightwing position did not correspond to supporting Reps
over Dems; and so my discussion doesn't support Dems over Reps , as you
imply in your comment. That ongoing discussion topic/issue on these lists is
not pertinent to analysis of the Marxist significance of the JFK
assassination.

Again, because Johnson, his replacement, was a _Democrat_; that logically
moots out the "Dem-Reps are the same" aspect. Since, the rightwing plotters
didn't feel it was necessary to put in a Republican, this analysis makes it
clear that the rightwingers could live with a Dem as much as a Rep. Ergo,
this analysis does not rely on any claim that the Reps are more rightwing
than the Dems. That issue is logically irrelevant to this analysis thereby.

^^^^^^^^

Generally speaking, the ruling class prefers to avoid conspiracies of this
type. For the past 200 years of bourgeois politics in the USA, nearly all
assassination attempts--successful or not--are carried out by fanatics with
little connection to bourgeois parties.

^^^^
CB: What's the evidence for this ? This is the bourgeois coverup position
termed "lone nuts". This is precisely what the political experience of 60's
and 70's taught us to reject.

Why is a leading radical like Manning Marable publishing _now_specifically
exposing the ruling class involvement in the assassination of Malcolm X ?
Clearly , part of his messsage is the current left fad for poo-poo'ing
ruling class terrorist plots is not poltically correct.

COINTELPRO, JFK, King, RFK, Black Panthers, Angela Davis and other  U.S.
ruling class projects in the last 50 years contradict your claim.

Oswald was so clearly a CIA agent it is laughable. And if he was a lone nut
, why was he hit by Ruby ? Nahhh. He was a fall guy , like he said.

^^^^^^

There is one exception, however. I speak of John Wilkes Booth who was simply
acting on the thwarted desires of the plantocracy. In other words, there was
a class basis for his violence. Those who would attribute such a motive for
the likes of Lee Harvey Oswald are stretching things in my opinion.



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