This is the fourth in a series on the counterinsurgency that’s happening in the USA. These are the first, second, and third ones.
The dominant elements of the U.S. left don’t want us to think strategically about what we must do to overcome the state’s counterinsurgency. This is because these elements aren’t the ones this counterinsurgency is seriously focused on targeting, and therefore feel detached from the situation. When they see the African People’s Socialist Party (Uhuru) getting targeted by the state, their reaction to this isn’t “we must do all we can to resist Uhuru’s persecution.” For a great amount of the political actors that claim to be socialist, the attitude towards the Uhuru case is instead one of indifference. Few of the biggest socialist orgs have consistently talked about the case, and even the ones that have talked about it are making it clear they don’t see saving Uhuru as a major priority.
With the Uhuru case being a situation of such gravity, where the DOJ could soon create the precedent to convict anyone who does international anti-imperialist solidarity work, these actors need to heavily engage in rationalization to be able to act apathetic towards it. How have they rationalized betraying Uhuru? By minimizing the danger the security state represents, in the same way they’ve done when the state has targeted MAGA. As Christian Parenti has observed about this aspect of leftist complicity in the security state’s power grabs:
Despite the FBI’s history of wanton abuse, many of my left-wing friends refuse to consider evidence of federal infiltration of MAGA-aligned organizations. My friends, alas, engage in historically inaccurate deductive reasoning: The FBI is right-wing, they assume; therefore, it would never move against right-wing groups. But it has, and it does. The historical record is clear. While the vast majority of the FBI’s subversion campaigns have targeted the left, the FBI has also moved against apolitical and culturally conservative groups; indeed, many persecuted Muslim-American organizations fit that description…
Leftists are badly deluded if they think an unaccountable secret-police state will attack only neo-Nazis. The stronger the security state, the more enemies it will find or manufacture, and the more pressure it will apply. Under such conditions, any left that can wage a meaningful class struggle will be crushed. If leftists, particularly Marxists and socialists, have an interest in democratic political agitation unmolested by secret police, they should not dismiss the undeniable fact of the FBI using counterintelligence tactics against far-right groups and MAGA supporters. A principled and pragmatic left position is simply this: COINTELPRO-style entrapment and provocation are wrong when done to the left, and wrong when done to the right.
The abandonment of the Uhuru 3 by so many of their fellow socialists has shown that this apathetic attitude isn’t only present when the repression targets the right. It’s also present when the state is going after parts of the left that threaten the dominant left element’s organizing monopoly. By aligning with the Center for Political Innovation, and by extension the Rage Against the War Machine coalition, Uhuru has defied a taboo within these circles. It’s joined with a political camp that challenges the dominance of the conventional left. Because of this, it’s been judged to not be worthy of solidarity.
This ideological divide within the American socialist movement fundamentally comes from that one issue: whether it’s acceptable to build coalitions beyond left-liberals. The side of Uhuru believes that the masses should be reached, so it’s chosen to establish relationships wherever revolutionary-compatible people exist. Uhuru’s left detractors believe the masses are fundamentally reactionary, and should be gatekept from the struggle based on how well they with fit with “leftism.” This is based upon the idea that if one has become part of a certain intellectual and ideological circle, they’re above the people, and therefore can’t be questioned as movement leaders. The Uhuru org doesn’t share this elitist attitude, which has made it successful at bringing Black workers into the struggle while unsuccessful at winning the loyalty of the elitist elements.
This is both because of the divergence in beliefs itself, and because of the ways that Uhuru’s mass-centered stance has caused it to be made marginalized. A group whose struggle is kept invisible by our ruling institutions isn’t going to get solidarity from those whose goal is to only talk about what’s most popular at the moment. Uhuru’s seriousness about building a movement has caused the state to make it into a serious target, which has come along with a media blackout on the Uhuru case. And because this issue is therefore unable to be exploited for influence-building, the left’s established elements have lacked incentive to practice real solidarity with the repression campaign’s targets.
They’ll speak out for Palestine, but not for civil liberties in the USA. Which means they’re truly harming the Palestinian cause, as they’re willing to let the state crush Palestine’s supporters. They’re also working to create a divide between Black liberation from Palestinian liberation, which hurts both.
The goal of these actors is to convince developing radicals that these two issues—Palestinian liberation and the fight against the security state—are fully separable. This argument depends on the notion that it doesn’t matter whether we work to combat the state’s repression of targets like MAGA or Uhuru, because supposedly this won’t make a difference as to how much the state can work to suppress dissent. The reality is that it absolutely makes a difference; because how well we combat the security state’s efforts at crushing us is going to determine how successful we are at building the movement. If we can avoid being driven underground, or delay a scenario where we are, then we’ll better be able to build momentum for the class struggle, and to cultivate relationships with the people. Acting principled on combating the security state, and on solidarity with the African liberation cause, will also aid us in advancing these goals.
If we embrace the established left’s ambivalent attitude towards fighting the security state, we’ll manage to appeal to liberals and radical liberals at the expense of isolating ourselves from the rest of the people. Which will keep the class struggle stagnant, and let the highest levels of capital solidify the liberal totalitarianism which they’re in the process of implementing. If we act principled, and recognize that combating the security state is instrumental for saving the pro-Palestine movement, then we’ll become in place to defeat our capitalist dictatorship.
The “Defeat the Deep State” rally that the RAWM coalition has planned, which will happen in DC on February 17, is going to be a major opportunity for advancing this crucial aspect of the class struggle. Which is precisely why we can expect the compatible left to try to discredit the event and its participants. The security state, and its “left” political wing, want us to act like fighting its attacks upon our liberties is optional. By arguing that “repression will come anyway,” they seek to obfuscate the extent of the threat which is posed by the precedents from the attacks upon Uhuru and MAGA. And, thereby, to keep us unaware of how big a difference we can make by resisting this threat.
It’s the same reasoning behind their argument for acting apathetic about the fight against U.S. hegemony: supposedly there’s no way we can have an effect on the conflicts that our government is involved in, so we should compromise our anti-imperialist practice for the sake of appealing to liberals.
This intensifying war that our government is waging against its own people is the logical conclusion of the imperialist wars abroad. And as this domestic war emerges, the imperialism-compatible left is of course telling us that fighting back against the attacks on our freedoms isn’t worthwhile. All that can come from following their advice is defeat for our popular movements. We must adopt a consistent opposition towards civil liberties crackdowns, a consistent solidarity with the Black liberation cause, and a willingness to do whatever is necessary for resisting the security state. Or else we’ll both be betraying Palestine, and betraying ourselves.
————————————————————————
If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here.
To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.
No comments:
Post a Comment