Comrades, the current issue of The Communist Monthly
, the Central Organ of the Communist League, has as its main article this month a set of draft theses being presented to the XXII Plenum of the Central Committee this April on the current situation in the U.S. The League is making these draft these public to spark discussion and comment, including among members, supporters and friends of the Workers Party in America. As such, I'm posting them here. If you want your comments considered by the League C.C., post them here or e-mail them to the League at league@communist-league.org before April 3.
==============================
The Tea Party Nativists and the Working Class
The Coming Battle
1. The rise of corporatism — the liquidation of the bourgeois-democratic content of state institutions; the replacement of law-making by deliberative legislation with law-making by judicial fiat; the merger of the public powers (the capitalist state) with private powers (corporate private security, mercenaries, etc.); the rise of the corporate welfare state as the underwriter and guarantor of credit, speculation and capital accumulation; the fundamental shift in the focus of the political government, from the arbiter of rights to the arbiter of “law and order,” and its seeming rise above the bourgeoisie and proletariat, on the backs of the petty-bourgeois bureaucracy, judiciary, military and police — has opened the door to a period of profound political and social crisis in the United States not seen since the secession crisis of the late 1850s and early 1860s.
The corporatist consensus forged in the late 1990s, which led to the initial dissolution of the Second American Republic and eight relatively stable years for bourgeois rule under the George W. Bush regime (with the aid of the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party in Congress), has now begun to wane under the rule of Barack Obama. Fissures in the consensus are beginning to appear on a daily basis. While we are still not within range of a wholesale schism in the bloc of corporatist exploiters, the recent rise of the Tea Party Nativist movement foreshadows a looming crisis among all classes that can only be resolved by the working class.
2. Corporatism, as a specific form of the declining phase of the imperialist epoch (the epoch of wars and revolutions), is akin to the form of “crisis” rule seen in past periods and known as Bonapartism. Like Bonapartism, corporatism seeks to stand above hostile and contending class forces, willing to use the rifle and baton of the state to arbiter and settle their disputes. Deliberative and legislative bodies are not the locus of power, but rather act in reflection of what the Bonapartist arbiters at the head of the state decide. The axis of power runs not through the body politic or its elected institutions, but through the military, police, judicial-prison industry and bureaucracy.
Unlike Bonapartism, however, corporatism has an independent program. “Law and order,” the only agenda of Bonapartism, are subordinated to a broader program under corporatism, which seeks to secure a more advantageous and powerful position for the ruling classes in the world system — seeks, in the case of the United States, to raise the economic power of Washington and Wall Street to match more closely with its political and military power through the use of the latter. In this sense, corporatism breaks sharply from other forms of “crisis” rule, which have historically been designed to address primarily
internal divisions among classes. The role of corporatism is both internal and external, seeking to develop an advantageous equilibrium for the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie domestically and internationally. Thus, in the final analysis, corporatism serves finance capital, just as bourgeois democracy once did.
3. The inherent danger in corporatism, however, rests precisely in its role as the arbiter among classes. The bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, having turned to corporatism to act as a “fair” judge to rule in favor of extending and intensifying exploitation and oppression of the proletariat, are now finding that this “fairness” of the arbiter can be turned against them in conflicts among the exploiters and oppressors. The alienation and disaffection felt by layers of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie toward the “fairness” of the corporatist arbiter-state had fueled the rise of rightwing libertarian and populist movements, including the anti-Federal Reserve movement around Texas Congressman Ron Paul and the various Tea Party Nativist groups.
The rise and growth of these movements signals the beginning of the end of the
interregnum between the Second American Republic and what is to come. Even though corporatism attempted to be a stabilizing and equalizing force for the exploiting and oppressing classes, it could not escape its own contradictions. While it temporarily succeeded in stabilizing capitalist rule in a time of increasing conflicts with workers and sections of the petty bourgeoisie over “globalization,” it was not able to maintain that equilibrium when it came to conflicts between the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, or conflicts between sections of those classes.
4. The central premise of the Tea Party Nativists is that the selection of Barack Obama as the chief arbiter of American corporatism has placed the country on the road to “socialism.” By “socialism,” it means “spreading the wealth” and some emergency nationalizations, not anything that we as communists would actually recognize as a supportable “socialism.” In other words, the sections of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie that control and form the core of the Nativist movement are now convinced that capitalism’s new “fair” judge will arbitrate against their interests and make their accumulation of capital more difficult.
Among the leading ranks of the Tea Party Nativists, there is little evidence to conclude that the charge of “socialism” is little more than rhetorical red meat. That is, it is not that these elements of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie actually believe Obama and the corporatist Democrats in Congress to be socialists (they might sincerely believe one or two of them to be, but that’s a far cry from their slogans); rather, they understand that “socialism” provides a powerful and pungent rallying cry for the radicalized far right. Among the ranks of the Tea Party Nativists, however, the charge of “socialism” is sincerely believed and sincerely accepted. It is not only associated with Obama and the Democratic Party, but also organizing in poor and working-class communities (e.g., the ACORN group), social service and welfare programs (including health care reform), immigration and the rise of a “majority-minority” America. The battle cry of “take back America!” has become a standard.
5. The Tea Party movement, though still in its early stages, has already reached the status of a mass movement in a short time, due in no small part to the material aid it has received from sections of the bourgeoisie. Its active core and composition is primarily drawn from the petty bourgeoisie — small business owners, independent producers (e.g., farmers, artisans), professionals, managers, bureaucrats and officials — with elements of the most privileged layers of the proletariat, socially and economically, serving as bulk material for public protests.
The Nativist program of the Tea Party movement lends itself to the particularly brutal and reactionary character of the American petty bourgeoisie. Formed during the rise of the ideology of the “rugged individual,” when land-grabbers roamed the watershed and prairies, massacring indigenous people for their land and resources, the petty bourgeoisie at the beginning of the 21st century continues to see in itself the “pioneer” who “made America” on the backs of others. Those who actually did the work of building the country — those who were either enslaved, indentured or exploited in this workhouse of nations (especially if they are not of exclusively European descent) — are not a part of their “nation.”
This reactionary ideology creates a nexus, where race/nationality, religious sect and class merge into a generalized “anti-American” platform. The idealized “America” is placed above the development of science, political thought and social progress, all three of which are seen as alien to their concept of the “nation.” Indeed, the idealized “nation” itself is seen as the source of all that is morally good and proper. Thus, an African American president is seen as a “usurper” who is not a citizen and came into power on the backs of “illegal immigrants;” moderately progressive reforms to the capitalist system are derided as “European” and “socialist;” non-Christians are attacked as “terrorists” or “immoral;” workers’ organizations, including the pro-business labor unions, are “Marxist,” and their members are “thugs.”
6. The point of this Nativist agenda, especially when we examine who is organizing and funding it, is clear: To mobilize a despairing, neurotic and xenophobic petty bourgeoisie
on a radically reactionary basis for the purpose of restoring their dominant positions and
preserving, in their view, the continued rule of capitalism.
As a class that owes its relative prosperity and power to the capitalist system, and pays the bourgeoisie back by acting as its organizers and police, the petty bourgeoisie has found itself increasingly ruined by its patron. The onset of the current economic depression has accelerated that process; the petty bourgeoisie found that they, too, can be the targets of “downsizing,” “outsourcing” and privatization, just as workers can. The pauperizing of the petty bourgeoisie eroded their remaining illusions in bourgeois democracy as fast as it eroded their 401(k)s and housing values.
In this environment, the collective fear and neurosis of the petty bourgeoisie gives way to dreams of a more idyllic life: the “prosperity” of competition and “free enterprise,” based on abstracted evocations of greater class stability; hopes for a return to the “American Century,” and dreams of a strong and vibrant “Main Street;” platitudes about returing to “American values” and “family values,” and holding off “secularism;” an envious hostility to disadvantageous inequality in the person of a Wall Street banker or CEO with a mansion and a summer home, and an animal fear of equality in the person of a worker in a baseball cap; the frenzy of “Americanism,” and the fear of Chinese creditors.
Above all is the “nation” ... of “rugged individuals” — where being “American” and a part of the “nation” means ... owning private property. Public property is the spawn of “socialism;” it is “European” and “alien.” But while making a “secular religion” out of the “nation,” the petty bourgeoisie does not want to sacrifice anything for it. Rather, it demands bribes for its loyalty, an endowment of property and means of production for itself, and protection from the worker, the foreclosure server and the tax collector.
7. Corporatist rule began under the leadership of the Republican Party, in the form of the George W. Bush regime. But it has since become the instrument of the Democratic Party, both in Congress and in the White House. The Democrats, as a coalition party of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, is more adaptable to the role as arbiter between conflicting classes because of its historic character and development. While it was necessary for the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie to rely on the more doctrinaire Republicans in Washington to implement the transition from bourgeois democracy to corporatism, it can be rightly said that the Democrats are the more “natural” and prepared political representatives for this period.
Under the threat of the Tea Party Nativists, however, the Democrats face a crisis. While the summit of the party is occupied by the most loyal agents of the bourgeoisie, its activist and organizational base is primarily in the petty bourgeoisie. First under the threat of corporatism and now under the threat of the Nativists, the Democrats have shifted increasingly toward reaction and the right. But as the Democrats shift to the right, they further alienate and dispossess their proletarian supporters and the proletariat in general. Thus, the conflict among the exploiting and oppressing classes increasingly becomes one that draws in wider circles of the working class, as it fights for its own interests. Under this growing pressure, the petty bourgeois of the Democratic Party become even more splintered, with many more breaking in the direction of the Nativists.
Thus, a series of connections bind the Democratic Party to the Nativists. While the Nativists have yet to become a mass force, the corporatist Democrats can continue to hold on to their base and also maintain a relatively unified role as arbiter. However, as the proletariat is repulsed by their rightward shift and begins to move in defense of itself, the forces at play begin to pry sections of the petty bourgeoisie away from the Democrats and toward the Nativists, until the latter conquers the class and becomes a genuine mass force. To put it another way,
the Tea Party Nativists can only become a mass force at the expense of the Democrats, and this development will proceed as long as the Democrats continue to act as a corporatist arbiter and further alienate the proletariat.
8. The growth of the Tea Party Nativists into a mass force will inevitably bring it into conflict with the proletariat, especially as the latter begin to organize themselves against the rightward shift in the Democratic Party. This might lead some to conclude that keeping the pressure on the Democrats via the “workers’ wing” of the party would stave off the growth of the Tea Party Nativists.
Quite the contrary. No amount of pressure from the proletariat on the corporatist Democrats in the White House and Congress alter their shift to the right under the pressure of the Nativists. As long as the working class is kept politiclly and organizationally subordinate to the Democratic Party, it is without voice or body; it is unable to organize in defense of its own interests or present an alternative vision and platform for society. Once it has gained its independence from the Democratic Party, it will not only be able to exert its power in the political and economic arenas, but it will also be able to see that it does not need to pressure the Democrats to win their demands. Indeed, with independence, workers will be able to see that their interests cannot be met by the politicians of the Democratic Party.
Moreover, only silent dependence on the Democrats by the proletariat can slow, but not stop, the Nativist conquest of the petty bourgeoisie. Even the current timid demands, requests and begging of workers and labor union officials has caused sections of the “independent” petty bourgeoisie that supported the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 to flock to the Nativist banner — even if only conjuncturally, such as in the recent election in Massachusetts for U.S. Senator.
The more that the proletariat appeals to the corporatist Democrats, the more they find themselves making demands on, first, a skeleton of the party, then, a shell, and, finally, an echo, as more of the petty-bourgeois base recoils from such timid and empty “pressure,” and gather around the Nativists.
9. The defection of sections of the “independent” petty-bourgeois mass to the Nativists belies the common perception that these elements are averse to the “extremism” of the Nativists. On the contrary, as history has shown, it is in times of economic and political crisis that the “moderate” pretensions of the petty bourgeoisie evaporate, leaving only the rage of the dispossessed “pushed too far.”
As long as business is going well and there are dollars in their pocket, the petty bourgeois is content to rely on “moderation,” lest anything upset the proverbial apple cart (and cash flow), and hope for greater success to come. But when that fresh hope spoils and begins to rot, when success turns into survival, the petty bourgeois is given to rage and looks to the “extremes” to restore his or her previous prosperity. In the Tea Party Nativists, they see a fighter against the “Three Bigs” — big business, big government and big labor — and for a more beneficial “justice” and arbitration in their favor.
As a class that has grown increasingly independent from its bourgeois patrons, the petty bourgeoisie has become less servile and less atomized. It has adopted a banner as its own, established its organic structures and now begins to assert itself in all arenas of society. It no longer needs a singular “leader” that can rally the disparate and disjointed elements of the class; its past illusions that it could seize power in its own name have now taken on physical form, as the petty bourgeoisie has been given more real control over the economic and political levers of society by the bourgeoisie.
10. The central task of communists in this period of rising crisis is to aid in the organization and political development of a proletarian movement that can not only express and advocate for its own class interests, but can also defend itself against the arrayed forces of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. First and foremost, this means building and strengthening the Workers Party in America as the proletarian political organization, the Workers’ International Industrial Union as a revolutionary industrial union and the economic arm of the proletariat, as well as helping to organize, build and grow working-class social, social service and cultural organs.
But this task also includes reaffirming more strongly our commitment to assisting any genuine proletarian action or organization in defending itself from attacks by the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. We cannot let our criticisms and differences with business unionism, other self-described proletarian trends or even currents of proletarian composition with non-proletarian consciousness stand in the way of defending their organizations and actions from attacks by the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie — especially when they come in the form of the Tea Party Nativists.
A key part of the effort to help defend our class is neutralizing or otherwise reducing the real and potential capability of the Nativists to become a mass force, and of those sections of the bourgeoisie that keep them in ready reserve. Counter-organizing and counter-protest against the Nativists accomplishes two tasks:
first, it demonstrates that a clear alternative exists to the programs of not only the Nativists, but also of the other factions of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, and,
second, it prevents the Nativists from growing unchecked by not only actively discouraging wavering elements from joining them, but also by proving that there exists a determined movement with a clear program in opposition to all others and led by the proletariat. While the proletarian organizations cannot compromise on the questions of composition and program, those elements that may be attracted to such a counteracting force can be organized into their own political, economic, cultural and social units, as an auxiliary to the proletarian movement.
11. The threat of the Tea Party Nativists is the threat of fascism in 21st century America. It is not the fascism of Italy in the 1920s, or Germany or Spain of the 1930s, but of
our time and
our location. It is a threat not only to the proletarian movement as it currently exists, but also to its future potential. While it is still too weak to take power itself, it can, through its actions, sap the strength of the proletariat, wear and beat down workers’ organization piecemeal while strengthening and tempering its forces, and spread dismay, disorganization and demoralization within the ranks of the working class.
The Nativists have already made it clear that their current unarmed and relatively non-violent protests are a temporary phenomenon, and that if corporatism does not accede to their demands, their next step is the use of violence. There is little doubt that the Nativists would gleefully turn their weapons on a disorganized and unarmed proletariat if they believed it would strengthen their overall position. Thus, the question of workers’ self-defense, up to and including the organizing of armed defense units, is put forward — not by us communists, but by our enemy, the Nativists.
But self-defense alone is useless unless it is part of a mass proletarian movement that is consciously fighting for its interests, and thus consciously opposing not only the Nativists but also the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces organizing them, funding them and motivating them. The C.C. of the League encourages all of its members and supporters, and the supporters of the organizations its supports, to emphasize the need to build a proletarian united front to confront and defeat the Tea Party Nativists in the coming battle.
Submitted by HM, February 23, 2010
