Wednesday, May 31, 2023

Liberalism’s survival strategy: degrow the economy, expand militarism, police the discourse


Late-stage capitalism is about selling scams to the people. Scams designed to keep a declining system going by convincing the people that the structural violence within these measures for keeping profits up is worthwhile. An example of this kind of social engineering is the narrative that Washington and European elites used to justify their placing Greece into debt bondage, as a supposed solution to the country’s reaching an economic apocalypse from its capitalist crises. Yanis Varofakis, one of the few involved in Greece’s handling of the situation who tried to stop the austerity plan, wrote a call for resistance that reminds me of what the resistors to Biden’s proxy war are saying. He called for those with integrity to bring: “Truth to power. Truth to our partners. Truth to the citizens of Europe. Truth regarding the sorry state of our banks. Truth about our ‘surpluses’. Truth about non-existent investment.”

We must do the equivalent in response to the policies the U.S. government is enacting to try to maintain the liberal order. Even though Varoufakis couldn’t prevent Greece’s being sold out, his endeavor provides an example for us. Victories for the liberation struggle are built on previous attempts that failed, but still represented progressive events; the 1917 revolution wouldn’t have felt as doable without the Paris commune. Amid the dark conditions that the ruling class is cultivating, we must struggle for working class victory. At the moment, the most meaningful act within this struggle is to advance the information war. Which entails exposing both imperialism’s psyops, and the hypocrisies of liberalism within the imperial center.


This can be done by providing the people with answers to the question that they’ve increasingly been wanting answered: why are their economic circumstances undergoing another vast series of shocks only fifteen years after 2008? The government can’t provide them with answers, all it can do is continue promoting the lies behind its wars while making more false promises. The truth is that the factors which produced our present economic crisis, and gave the government an excuse for further austerity with this week’s debt ceiling resolution, are all things that our government is responsible for. Including and especially the factor of the Ukraine war. The two parties and their corporate puppeteers engineered the conditions that led to a new war in Europe. They cultivated a Federal Reserve which has been carrying out a scheme by banking executives to drive down living standards so that employers can gain more leverage. They designed an economy that’s extremely financialized, concentrated, unstable, and set up to prioritize militarism over social spending. 


Now that they’ve exploited the latest crisis this system has brought to make the austerity paradigm even worse, they’re trying to sustain this cycle of disasters which get followed by additional attacks upon the working class. The way they aim to sustain it is by selling the next steps in their war against the proletariat as something progressive. By convincing us that a severely shrunken economy, and a diversion of even more resources towards militarism, are things leftists should support.


The argument they’re using to convey this idea is something we’ve already been seeing for a long time. The Democratic Party’s narrative managers assert that to save the planet, we need degrowth, and that the new cold war against Russia and China is part of what’s required for reaching this goal. We’ve seen this with John Kerry’s assertion that expanding the military buildups against Russia and China is something the USA needs to do in response to the climate crisis. We’ve seen this with the implications from imperialism’s propagandists that Russia and China share the most culpability in delaying climate progress, even though China is almost a decade ahead of its Paris accord pledges while the U.S. military is the largest institutional polluter. 


The argument these ideas come from is that the USA, being the leader of the liberal order and therefore supposedly the only one capable of bringing the globe to a positive climate outcome, is therefore justified in doing whatever necessary for countering the world powers which threaten its global authority. Because the liberals present their model of governance as the sole one capable of preventing environmental catastrophe—as well as further disease horrors, after how relevant public health has become in the last decade—they conclude that fighting the new cold war is simply a cost of saving civilization. Austerity is also supposedly necessary for this, since within the degrowth ideology, the people rather than the system are seen as the thing to blame for global warming.


And this argument has persuasive power among leftists, insofar as the representatives of what we today call the “left” are so opportunistic that they’re willing to in essence go along with the narratives of the imperialists. To narratively assist the liberals with these policies, one doesn’t have to outright support austerity, or Ukraine aid, or AFRICOM, or Washington’s effort to occupy the southwest Pacific so China can be countered. They only need to act more concerned about left sectarianism, or tailing the Democratic Party, or promoting radical liberal theories, or the other self-interested things the imperialism-compatible left does, than about fighting the system. The globe’s primary contradiction is U.S. hegemony, the primary contradiction in the imperial center is class, and the primary contradiction in our discourse spaces is radical liberalism. Because radical liberalism is what motivates those who are supposed to represent the revolutionary struggle to prioritize ideas which don’t fundamentally threaten the ruling class. 


The system is not endangered when leftists repeat the same critical theories that the New York Times regularly features. What it is threatened by are the ideas that challenge imperialism’s psyops, and that expose the Democratic Party and its narrative managers for their complicity in imperialist violence.


The efforts to liberate the LGBT community, Black people, Native people, and other minoritized groups have the potential to take on a revolutionary character, and often have throughout U.S. history. What the radlibs leave out is that in an environment where these efforts got co-opted a long time ago, they can only be revolutionary when one advances them in a way which simultaneously promotes the class and anti-imperialist struggle. The way to do this is by rejecting the radlib idea that the people in the imperial center are fundamentally reactionary, which leads a developing radical towards elitism and detachment from the people. 


As soon as you start thinking the interests of the U.S. working class fundamentally differ depending on their skin color, view the American people as synonymous with their government, and emphasize what divides the workers more than what unites them, you’ve been duped into aiding the Democratic Party. The Democrats and their policies depend on there being a “left” and a “communist movement” that aren’t interested in winning, that care more about gaining influence within the insular “New Left” spheres which the three-letter agencies have cultivated.


The New Left was created to replace the genuine communist movement, which got wiped out first with McCarthyism and then with the destruction of the Panthers. With the Ukraine war, which has driven most of the country into poverty and thereby exposed the radlib lie about Americans mainly being labor aristocrats, we have an unprecedented opportunity to rebuild that movement. The way to do this is by rejecting sectarianism, dogmatism, and left opportunism, then building a working class movement that exists beyond the insular left circles. There’s an extremely powerful idea we can use to advance this goal: that our government has sold out the working class to fight a war which Washington is truly the one to blame for. If we bring this idea to the workers, and fight the psyops the liberals use to argue Russia is the aggressor, we’ll bring tens of millions to communism. The imperialism-compatible left isn’t doing this, because it doesn’t want to win. To bring truth to power and truth to the people, we must reject the advice of these servants of the Democratic Party.

————————————————————————


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 pinch during 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.

Monday, May 29, 2023

Bezos is planning to replace the present U.S. imperialism with a “decolonized” version of imperialism



The project by Jeff Bezos and other oligarchs to weaponize the concept of anti-colonialism towards reinforcing capitalism goes deeper than their “decolonial” NGOs. This is because whereas these NGOs are relatively easy for developing radicals to recognize as anti-revolutionary, there are other, more insidious ways that imperialism-compatible “anti-colonial” politics is getting normalized. The effort by Bezos to set up his “Earth Fund” so that he can fund bourgeois iterations of “land back” like NDN Collective is supported not just by institutional power, but by narrative power. By a series of ideas within radical spaces which convince actors who otherwise would oppose bourgeois “decolonization” to tacitly support it, based on the idea that this is a necessary step towards bringing decolonization’s socialist version.

The way to fight Bezos is by recognizing that he’s not even co-opting the USA’s “anti-colonial” movement, as this movement in its modern mainstream iteration was a tool of capitalism in the first place. The examples of genuinely revolutionary anti-colonialism in the core are scarcer than radical liberals want us to believe. At this stage, revolutionary anti-colonialists only exist among either activists who are too ideologically underdeveloped to be tied to the Democratic Party (and these types often get assimilated into reformism), or ones who are so exceptionally developed as to be able to consciously reject the Democratic Party’s influence. Otherwise, the DNC is the thing they’re helping, not a true project to overthrow the colonial/capitalist state. This widespread cowardice and complicity in the country’s left is why even though the U.S. empire is collapsing worldwide, it’s still far too stable in the core. Those who are supposed to represent the country’s liberation struggles lack revolutionary intentions, and even when they say they're revolutionary, they often advance radical liberalism instead of serious Marxism.


To expand the influence and numbers of the serious Marxists, we have to expose an extremely important reality about the nature of today’s conditions in the USA: that even though the U.S. continues to be a settler-colonial state, the economic structure it’s based upon makes it able to continue acting as an imperialist force, even if settler-colonialism were ended. That is, as long as the decolonization project were to take on a bourgeois class character, rather than a proletarian one. Even if the U.S. and Canada were completely decolonized, they would still be able to extract from the imperial peripheries unless socialism came along with the decolonization process. We would simply have a modified version of imperialism and class society, where a Native bourgeoisie has been able to attain fully equal status to the white bourgeoisie while working class people within and without the continent are still exploited.


This is what Bezos, NDN, and Canada’s own efforts at raising up an indigenous bourgeoisie are already making a reality. They’re selling land privatization via a scam where they call this “giving the land back,” when in reality they’re only giving it back to an opportunistic minority of Natives while the conditions of the Native proletarians remain unchanged. And of course while the conditions of the workers in the neo-colonies, or the victims of imperialism’s wars, aren’t improved in any way either. The imperialists are also carrying out a parallel “decolonial” scam within the Global South, where as the planet warms, they’re increasingly using the need to protect indigenous lands as a pretext for U.S. military involvement. It’s the same scam that the liberals have carried out when they’ve sold “green” imperialism, or “feminist” imperialism, or “rainbow” imperialism.


The radicals who promote “decolonial theory” which lacks a proletarian class character are assisting this project for a “decolonized” imperialism, whether they intend to or not. How to recognize such types of anti-Marxist theory, even though its propagators try to present it as “Marxist?” By seeing whether it represents such a serious break from Marxism as it’s been established by previous theoreticians, you can’t honestly argue that it’s reconcilable with Marxism. This is what one can recognize about Gerald Horne’s argument that the American revolution of 1776 was a reactionary event, as described by this part from the deconstruction of that argument by Midwestern Marx. The essay observes how Horne, and by extension all those who share his ideas, have discarded the notion of historical materialism shared by all of history’s biggest figures within Marxism:


Horne briefly acknowledges this, but tries to glibly explain it away, by saying that Lenin, Ho Chi Minh and other revolutionaries were merely being motivated ‘more by diplomatic niceties and protocol than anything else’. The notion that leaders of revolutionary projects which were literally at war with US imperialism would be primarily motivated by diplomatic niceties is, again, something that is very difficult to believe. What’s also rather stunning about Horne’s treatment of the American Revolution is the lack of engagement with previous Marxist scholarship on the subject, odd for someone who claims to come from that tradition. In ‘The Counter Revolution of 1776’, there is not even a passing acknowledgement of the foundational work of WEB Dubois, Herbert Aptheker [especially his classic work ‘Negro Slave Rebellions’], Eugene Genovese and so many others who had written on the American Revolution and slavery while applying a Marxist class analysis. The notion that all these sharp scholars, famed for training their laser eyes on aspects of history buried or obscured by the ruling class, would have failed to uncover a historical fact as enormous as the American colonial rebellion of 1776 being motivated by slavery, strains credulity to a breaking point.


What’s the effect of this repudiation of Marxism in the name of “anti-colonialism?” It’s to fortify imperialism’s organizational and discourse control over our popular movements. The same is true about “degrowth” in relation to the environmental movement: it’s a “green”  theory that’s compatible with capitalism and unable to be incorporated into Marxism. As long as those who claim to be Marxists are informed by the “anti-colonial theory” that liberal academics have constructed (which is absolutely what informed Horne’s 1776 analysis), rather than actual Marxism, they’ll remain unable to win. This is because as Parenti implied in his critique of these theories, they cultivate a mentality which makes one unable to gain the support of the broad population:


Many who pretend to be on the Left are so rabidly anti-Marxist as to seize upon any conceivable notion except class power to explain what is happening in the world. They are the Anything-But-Class (ABC) theorists who, while not allied with conservatives on most political issues, do their part in stunting class consciousness. The "left" ABC theorists say we are giving too much attention to class. Who exactly is doing that? Surveying the mainstream academic publications, radical journals, and socialist scholars conferences, one is hard put to find much class analysis of any kind. Far from giving too much attention to class power, most U.S. writers and commen­tators have yet to discover the subject. While pummeling a rather minuscule Marxist Left, the ABC theorists would have us think they are doing courageous battle against hordes of Marxists who domi­nate intellectual discourse in this country—yet another hallucination they hold in common with conservatives.


Class is the most relevant thing to the lives of the majority of the U.S. population. It’s the reason why almost two-thirds are now living paycheck to paycheck. To reject focusing on the class contradiction in one’s rhetoric, to talk more about what divides the workers than what unites them, is to limit one’s potential receptive audience to a niche online community. If all Marxists acted like this, the state would have no chance of being defeated. Which ironically would mean decolonization, true decolonization where the workers within the U.S. empire’s internal colonies gain power, wouldn’t ever be liberated. To win, we need to reach a synthesis between anti-colonialism and the labor struggle. Because anti-colonialism is something that’s compatible with Marxism, existing and historic socialist countries have had projects for rectifying the colonial contradiction. Our problem in the core is that when you hear about “anti-colonialism,” the default scenario is that it’s a bourgeois scam. The only way to correct this situation is by not entertaining the anti-Marxist “critical theories” which narratively support the scam, and building a working class movement that’s capable of winning the people.

————————————————————————


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 pinch during 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.

Sunday, May 28, 2023

PSL’s Brian Becker promotes the flawed argument that reinforcing key liberal ideas is a worthwhile compromise



The task of illustrating why Brian Becker and PSL’s practice isn’t right for the communist movement is different from the one of illustrating why Joe Sims and the CPUSA’s practice isn’t right for it. Unlike with the CPUSA, the ways that PSL reinforces the Democratic Party’s dominance aren’t obvious on the surface. Its leaders don’t call for voting for Biden, like CPUSA’s do. Their commentary doesn’t say that Russia is an imperialist power, and they don’t platform left neocons who say Russia is the “biggest threat to world peace.” These offenses of CPUSA are severe enough for the average Marxist today who’s serious to distrust it. So isn’t the case for the PSL’s offenses, yet that’s what makes these offenses actually more detrimental to the struggle. Because PSL is able to lead many genuine anti-imperialists in a direction that perpetuates the Democratic Party’s grip over organizing spaces, without their noticing that this is the effect of the practice being prescribed to them.

The first major indication that this is what the PSL’s practice has become appeared in 2020, when Becker announced a policy of critical support for Bernie Sanders in the primary and a refusal to run the party’s candidate in swing states if Sanders won the nomination. Becker’s reasoning was that even though he recognized Sanders held reactionary stances in certain important areas, supporting him represented a net gain for the socialist movement due to Sanders supposedly being an overall progressive force. As in a force that was hurting the DNC more than he was helping it. Becker concluded: “Tactics can never be absolute, designed for all situations or last forever. On the contrary, revolutionaries must combine a rock-hard adherence to core principles with tactical suppleness to advance the movement for socialism under varying conditions and on shifting terrain. For now, the Sanders campaign represents a dynamic insurgency promoting radical social changes in the face of increasingly stiff headwinds from a criminal ruling class that fears the loosening of its absolute grip over U.S. politics and the economy. We support the insurgency against the reactionaries.”


The problem with this calculus was that for years by that point, it had been evident Sanders was more of a help than a hindrance to the DNC. He had made a non-aggression pact with Clinton prior to running in 2016, he had tried to bring his base into the Democratic Party by endorsing Clinton, then he had furthered this project to leverage his platform in favor of reformism by promoting the new cold war with Russia. Becker either directly or implicitly recognized that Sanders had committed these offenses, yet he felt in spite of this that Sanders was worth supporting. Not because Sanders himself was a friend to revolutionary politics, but because his project supposedly represented something which brought revolution closer.


The flaw in Becker’s argument about Sanders weakening the DNC is clear when you see what Becker didn’t want to admit: that the effect the Sanders campaigns had is one where their leader brought many ideologically developing individuals into a reformist project, then reinforced the anti-Russian biases the media had previously begun instilling these individuals. The Sanders campaigns were a net negative for the revolutionary cause, because they overall reinforced the DNC’s grip. The only ways they weakened the DNC were when many Sanders supporters broke away from his cult of personality, and came to view him as a dishonorable enabler of corruption and imperialism. By calling for PSL members to come into pro-Sanders circles and recruit them into the party, Becker was rationalizing supporting Sanders by asserting that Marxists can bring Sanders supporters to Marxism via this strategy. 


The problems with this plan, and with the parallel reformist actions the PSL has taken since then, were 1) that backing Sanders meant backing a project which had a net negative impact for the revolutionary cause, and 2) that the PSL’s reformist tendencies made it unable to bring whatever Sanders supporters it recruited into a genuinely revolutionary organization.


We know the latter is true because ever since the Ukraine proxy war began, and forced those on the left to show whether they stand for revolution or opportunism, Becker and the PSL have shown they stand for opportunism. PSL has revealed its true allegiance is to the liberals, not to the working class. PSL has denounced both NATO and Russia in its statement on the war, as well as displayed the Ukrainian and Palestinian flags together to convey the idea that Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression and subjugation. These are undeniable signs that PSL has taken on an opportunistic practice. Not merely because they reinforce key pro-NATO narratives, but because they’re motivated by a desire to gain more support from liberals at the cost of not challenging fundamental liberal pro-imperialist beliefs. The org has done these things because as Becker effectively explained three years ago, the PSL views liberals as the most important demographic to appeal to. So much that PSL is willing to compromise on revolutionary principles if this means it can reach even one more liberal by doing so.


When Becker made his critical support statement, one of my fellow organizers criticized him by saying he was arguing off of one of the few things my friend thought Lenin was wrong about: the popular front. My friend felt at the time, though he doesn’t anymore, that Lenin was wrong to ally with social democrats. Even though my friend was right that Becker’s Sanders alliance project wasn’t a good thing, my friend has since admitted that his criticism of Lenin was ultra-leftist. The conclusion I’ve come to from this is that whereas Lenin was right, Becker was wrong. Because the problem with Becker’s practice isn’t that he utilizes the popular front, it’s that he seeks to create such a front with the wrong group. That group being the liberals.


In our time and place, a better group than the liberals to form a popular front with is instead the types of libertarians who’ve come to believe fighting U.S. hegemony is the most important priority. This is because whereas the liberals have shown they’ll only ever attack the communist organizations which support Russia’s anti-fascist war, the libertarians have shown they’ll ally with these most principled kinds of communists. And predictably, when such a front between the ideological groups that care the most about imperialism emerged this year in the form of the Rage Against the War Machine organizing coalition, the PSL’s reaction was to attack it. The organizers of the PSL’s March 18th ANSWER rally sought to discredit RAWM, based on Black Agenda Report’s radical liberal argument about how an anti-imperialist coalition shouldn’t be supported if it doesn’t meet some ill-defined diversity quota. Using these left gatekeeping rhetorical tactics, ANSWER tried to censure and isolate RAWM, revealing itself to represent a sectarian force within the antiwar and socialist movements.


It’s an unfortunate thing that aside from the unease about Becker’s critical support statement which Marxists like my friend articulated in private conversations, seemingly no one wrote any polemics decrying Becker’s decision. But with PSL’s attack against RAWM, many Marxists have decided that it’s crossed a boundary, and we’re now beginning to see more public statements exposing this org’s opportunist pattern of activities. The PSL has been making it ever clearer that it doesn’t intend to challenge the foundational beliefs of pro-imperialist liberals. And that even when it does things which would otherwise be positive, like anti-NATO rallies, it uses these things as platforms for sectarian attacks upon the groups that are principled on anti-imperialism. 


Becker keeps promising that these compromises are worth it, then he and those who share his ideas prove that they’re ultimately going to help reinforce the DNC’s power. The only way to break the Democratic Party’s grip is by building an antiwar movement that’s organizationally and ideologically outside of its control, which RAWM is letting us do.

————————————————————————


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 pinch during 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.

Saturday, May 27, 2023

Our government is preparing for a combination of societal collapse events, which will likely happen in the next 20 years



I recently discovered that my expectation about how a 9.0 earthquake has a 3 in 10 chance of happening in my area in the next fifty years was mistaken. It was mistaken because the idea about how there’s a “37% chance of the Cascadia quake being in the next half-century” is a popular myth, a myth that gives a false sense of security. The truth is that we shouldn’t be thinking about the likely date for when the Cascadia subduction zone breaks in terms of the next five decades, but in terms of the next two decades.

Doubt in the 37% number starts appearing when you ask: how can it both be true that we’re overdue for the next 9.0 quake, and that the quake most likely won’t happen during the next generation? And this isn’t me engaging in a scientific fallacy, because there is in fact no reason why the latest tectonic pressure buildup cycle will take such an abnormally long time to be completed. I say an abnormally long time because upon looking at the frequency of 9.0 earthquakes in the region over the last 10,000 years, there’s no precedent for the cycle lasting longer than a little under three-and-a-half centuries. And the last time the cycle became completed was in 1700, with the latest quake of that scale. As Surviving Cascadia puts it after doing an honest statistical analysis, “we only have 22 years until the PNW [Pacific Northwest] passes the longest interval during this time frame.” To strengthen this argument, this spring scientists discovered a leak at the bottom of the ocean off the Oregon coast, indicating that the plates are already building up enough tension to make the quake a short-term prospect.


Obviously it’s a coincidence that the Cascadia quake appears overwhelmingly likely to happen during the same couple of decades when the other destabilizing events I’ll describe here are to take place. Cascadia is not man-made, it isn’t one of the many destructive products of capitalism in decline. But the extent to which it will cause death, destruction, and social decline is absolutely going to be exacerbated by our socioeconomic system. A system which it will take a revolution to transition away from, and which therefore will likely still be in place here when the quake happens. And from the perspective of civilizational rise and fall, it’s unsurprising that this is the era when the United States will undergo a crisis large enough to leave an irremovable scar on its economy and wider social stability. The society that the settlers built has been in California for less than three centuries, the localities in my area were all created many decades after the last Cascadia rupture. 


The construction of this civilization was not informed by the knowledge about our region’s earthquake reality that indigenous peoples had been compiling for many thousands of years. Instead of consulting these peoples, the newcomers forcibly relocated and virtually exterminated them through the California genocide, one of history’s greatest atrocities. Then the settlers designed infrastructure and buildings that were so ill-equipped for the next Cascadia quake, schools and hospitals didn’t start being required to get built according to seismic safety standards until the 1990s.


In their arrogance, the creators of this empire thought that they could build one of the globe’s vastest economies on these foundations, and then not have that economy’s size ironically work to the country’s disadvantage when the quake happened. Cascadia, and the smaller San Andreas quake that the former could set off, are going to make the operations of the west coast’s biggest corporations untenable. These companies are going to relocate, along with many of the region’s smaller businesses and much of the region’s less-prepared residents. What will be left is a giant sacrifice zone. I say this because even though FEMA has prepared what will be the biggest disaster mobilization in the country’s history, where police, troops, and international aid workers descend on the region in record numbers, the ways our government has responded to Covid and the century’s first climatic disasters show that the working class won’t be saved. Only the bourgeoisie will.


On the coast, which is where the shaking will be in the violent category and where a tsunami of over a dozen meters will hit, it will take around three years for electricity, indoor plumbing, highways, and medical services to all be accessible again. The electrical grid, the comparatively easiest one of these things to repair, could be out for at least half a year. It’s clear that these aspects of the recovery will take so long not just from the extent of the anticipated destruction, but from how the U.S. government has taken around a year to restore power to places like Puerto Rico after its 2017 hurricane. A bourgeois state that’s built on the exploitation of indigenous territories and racial terror, and that gets more heavily invested in war as its decline continues, is going to be even less willing to assist the region’s most vulnerable populations a couple decades from now. We’ll be even further along the country’s process of breakdown. 


Beyond the aid, the opportunities for mass evacuations, and the (delayed) repair operations, our government will leave us in a situation where our living standards have been greatly reduced in the long term. With the region’s former tech industry now in other parts of the country, all that will be left is an enormous population that’s come to lack economic value, and that therefore can be discarded. Jobs will disappear, and corporations will buy up all the land that gets left behind.


I predict these things because as I observed, if we can expect this event within the next two decades, the capitalist state will likely still be ruling my part of the world at the same time it occurs. Our revolutionary organizations aren’t yet at the stage where they can challenge the state in an immediate sense. Unless the class struggle develops a bit faster than I expect, this is the system my area's people will be living under during the coming emergency. Yet unlike a time such as the 1970s, when an effective communist party could be built but the U.S. empire’s crises weren’t advanced enough for the system to be in danger, we’re now in a moment when a revolutionary project could succeed within a generation. And depending on how well we work on this project, the quake and the other shocks the country will experience could represent decisive points in the story of the bourgeois state’s downfall. Like the world war and related economic crisis that Russia experienced right during the same time when the czars’s forces abandoned him.


——————————————


Cascadia isn’t the only power grid-destroying event that there’s good reason to expect the United States will see during the next two decades. In a study about the effects of global warming on U.S. infrastructure, Pentagon researchers talk about the time scale of the breakdown in similar terms, exploring the possibility of a country-wide electrical system unraveling during the “next 20 years.” The time when the study was put out represents more of a reason to take the researchers seriously about this being the likely window of time for the collapse. To illustrate what I mean, here are the words me and my friend recently exchanged when I started talking about the study:


Him: are you sure it’s accurate? It might not have taken Covid-19 into account.


Me: it did. It said that the next pandemic isn’t a matter of if, but when.


Him: hmm. When did the report come out?


Me: fall of 2019.


Him: what? Oooh, boy.


The report is titled Implications of Climate Change for the U.S. Army. Its thesis is apparent from looking both at its prescriptions for the imminent crises it describes, and at the ways the military has responded to these crises in their early stages. This thesis is that an expanded and permanent military presence within the U.S. is how to respond to the country’s destabilization. Covid-19–which won’t be the last or even the least severe virus we see, given how global warming has destabilized the biosphere—prompted the armed forces to get far more involved in public life. As have the weather disasters the country has been experiencing, including the 2021 Texas electrical failure. 


What would prompt the military to make its responses to the country’s intensifying disasters less benevolent than mere National Guard aid efforts, and effectively impose martial law on large parts of the country, is an uprising. Which isn’t a scenario that the 2019 report talks about, but it is something that U.S. military researchers have made a pattern of discussing since the 2008 crisis magnified class contradictions. In its analysis about how to better anticipate destabilizing events, the 2019 report describes 2008 as an example of when the system’s operators have failed to see approaching dangers:


The real challenge with black swan events is not accurate anticipation, but timely recognition. While it can be useful to imagine what might happen, we should focus more on recognizing what is happening as quickly as possible and limiting the damage through timely learning. The black plague took half a decade to advance from Sicily to the Baltic states. More recently, the 2008 financial crisis is already remembered as a “shock” event that surprised global finance. However, the truth is more nuanced, and depressing. Notable observers of the system (including Dr. Taleb) recognized serious problems long before the fall of Lehman Brothers in September, 2008 (and the onset of a full-blown banking crisis). Yet this was mostly recognition, not prediction. The clearest early signal of big trouble in the mortgage market came in the March-April, 2007 collapse of New Century Financial, an originator of risky mortgages, almost a year and a half before Lehman’s end, and a year before Bear Stearns was rolled up. What happened in the meantime? In All the Devils Are Here, Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera describe two embattled Bear Stearns asset managers who provide a microcosm of the wishful thinking that made the crisis much worse than it needed to be. In the face of mounting evidence that their investment strategy is failing, “the two men simply couldn’t bring themselves to believe that the picture was as dire as the model suggested.”


As Surviving Cascadia says, “We prepare — or choose not to — based on our perceived risk.” The U.S. national security state has come to perceive widespread systemic breakdown as a relatively short-term risk, and has prepared by creating a mobilization plan (implied within the report) that effectively applies the Cascadia quake FEMA response protocol to the rest of the country. There’s no doubt that these crises are coming, and that our government is going to respond to them by further militarizing society. This breakdown, like Cascadia, could come sooner than we’d like to believe. An El Niño is likely to start this year, which will magnify existing weather extremes and speed up the disruptions towards agriculture which global warming is causing.


Where there’s still uncertainty is in whether these disruptions are going to produce victory for the proletarian movement. If the revolutionary organizations don’t grow strong enough, whatever spontaneous revolts that our deteriorating conditions produce won’t bring the state’s demise. The state will be able to divert and repress them, like it did with 2020’s protests. 


By grow strong enough, I don’t necessarily mean get enough recruitment numbers, as a smaller cadre can be a better cadre. I’m also talking about these organizations gaining the structural attributes to be able to navigate our circumstances, which includes a series of survivalist protocols. For those in my area, these protocols are the thing that will separate us from an outcome where our revolutionary project gets demobilized by these crises, and an outcome where we assert control over history amid the upheavals. The Art of War observes that “in the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.” In the chaos that our society is beginning to experience, the state is the one that has everything to lose, while we’re the ones that have everything to gain. When we view the imminent catastrophes from this perspective, we gain the right mentality for becoming active historical agents.


——————————————


I can’t speak for everyone who will be impacted by the quake on what they should do, and whether they should stay. I do know that if I can stay in the area, I will. The only way I’ll have left is if the quake happens after the class conflict seriously escalates, revolts start being successful in the big cities, and me and my cadre have to flee to the Bay Area to avoid being picked off by the local fascists. Prior to a politically related displacement scenario like that, the quake will probably have happened. And I’ll need to be here to fulfill a series of tasks, tasks that keep becoming clearer as the class struggle grows tenser.


Should the quake happen prior to when our revolutionary orgs have strengthened enough to materialize those revolutionary urban revolts I described, I plan to use my time offline to continue the struggle in other areas than online commentary. I can’t change the reality that my online projects will one day be put on a long hiatus, so I’ll have to do what I can given the circumstances. When that day comes, and you start finding that all my online profiles are inactive and no one is able to reach me, the best way you can help with my situation is by continuing to fight the online informational war. If I know the work I’ve done will inspire others to redouble their resistance towards imperialism’s psyops when I’ve been made inaccessible, I’ll have done my job for the time being. What I’ll need to focus on is keeping a cadre going, when we’ve been cut off from the systems that make this as convenient as it is now.


This is something that communists across the country have to be thinking about, because the equivalent could happen to them. The platforms we’re using are only temporary, aside from better ones like Substack or Telegram that aren’t eager to censor anti-imperialists. And even these ones won’t be options if the power grid goes down, or the military shuts off the Internet (which it’s been making plans to do in the areas where civil conflict breaks out). This task of survivalism feels like an overwhelming thing to add on to all of the other jobs cadres need to be doing, but unlike the right-wing or apolitical preppers, we’re not doing it simply for the sake of surviving. We’re doing it to be able to overthrow the state and replace it with a proletarian state. Which gives a purpose to our challenges that wouldn’t be present if we didn’t know the liberation theory which informs our actions.


For me and my cadre to survive as one unit, most of the things I’ll need as a minimum are water filtration and transportation equipment, a small portable stove, a tent, and hunting or fishing tools. What exact items you’ll need depends on whether you’ll have access to a yard, but I’m sure you can figure that out on your own. The important thing is that we get the items and the pre-blackout protocols to be able to remain in contact with our local cadre members after the disruption. We can’t become isolated to ourselves and our families, we need to expand who we consider “family” and make sure that the radicals we work with will be part of our lives throughout the blackout. If you’ll be in such a compromised situation that you have no choice but to evacuate your area, this doesn’t necessarily apply to you. My point is we should minimize how much these events hinder our revolutionary work, because every day of work is precious in this task.


I’m so determined to stay where I am because I know the value of the land I’m on. Northern California is one of the few places in the country that will get wetter, not drier, as the planet warms. Its vast natural assets in the forests are going to be helped by the increasing rains, and its agricultural capacity will be made far greater. When almost everywhere else is withering away, the logical thing to do for me in the long term is be stubborn in staying on this land. It has the potential for an incredible future, as long as we build socialism within it. My homestead garden project, with its potential for being a help to the community during the quake’s aftermath, feels like it could be a prelude to what my area as a whole will become in relation to the surrounding region. It will increasingly be a center for life, even though for a time it will be hit the worst by our seismic events. The coast in particular is a haven, despite its being the place where the shaking will be most extreme. Because if you stray just a few kilometers inland, you’ll be vulnerable to the area’s ever-intensifying fires. If we can slightly relocate our communities to above the places that will get inundated by sea level rise, the meter-long ground level drop the quake will produce, and the growing rain floods, we’ll be able to host a climate safe zone.


This is one optimistic part of the situation we’re facing. A situation where within the next generation, the country is to be battered by a compounding series of disasters. The more the climate crisis accelerates, the more strained our systems will become, and the less able our infrastructure will be to accommodate communities that get overcrowded with internally displaced persons. A 2019 New York Times report describes how: 


Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life…One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone. Such a shift in population is likely to increase poverty and widen the gulf between the rich and the poor. It will accelerate rapid, perhaps chaotic, urbanization of cities ill-equipped for the burden, testing their capacity to provide basic services and amplifying existing inequities. It will eat away at prosperity, dealing repeated economic blows to coastal, rural and Southern regions, which could in turn push entire communities to the brink of collapse.


Workers democracy is how to undo this damage, and how to build a more prosperous society than the capitalist state is capable of building. To save our society, we have to keep our cadres going throughout these shocks, however extreme the shocks are.

————————————————————————


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 pinch during 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.

Thursday, May 25, 2023

The majority of U.S. workers are compatible with revolutionary struggle. Don’t trust the ultras who say otherwise.



How should you judge a people and a society if you’re a Marxist? Not by essentializing them, like ultra-leftists do, but by viewing peoples and societies through a framework of historical development. If a society has had a bourgeois nature at one point in history, that doesn’t mean it still has that nature, or will always have it. And there’s an obvious fallacy in portraying a people as all being of the same class character. Even during the peak of U.S. hegemony, and during the early decades of capitalism on this continent, there were proletarians. And these proletarians were of all colors, as demonstrated by the history of black communists successfully building alliances even with working class whites who were nostalgic for their “southern heritage.” That we can recognize this shared material interest between the country’s workers of all colors doesn’t mean we need to hold on to U.S. patriotism, or act like the United States needs to remain in existence. It simply means that there are many more people in the imperial center who are compatible with revolution than the ultras want us to believe, and that these people have some major material incentives to unify.

The ultras depict a fictitious version of our conditions, a version where much more violence would be needed to attain revolution than would actually be the case. They act like the majority of the people wouldn’t be willing to tolerate a scenario where land jurisdiction gets returned to the tribes, a notion that the reactionaries who oppose rectifying the colonial contradiction ironically also seek to promote. They portray not just the white workers, but the workers even in the most proletarianized groups like the black community, as mostly or entirely labor aristocrats. This is not a materialist way to analyze a society. It’s a way to feel self-superior towards the vast majority of the people around you, and to have an excuse not to engage in class struggle within your own conditions.


Lenin defines labor aristocrats as a “stratum of bourgeoisified workers or ‘labor aristocracy,’ who have become completely petty-bourgeois in their mode of life, in the amount of their earnings, and in their point of view, serve as the main support of the Second International [the reformist socialists – CP] and, in our day, the principal social (not military) support of the bourgeoisie. They are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the labor movement, the labor lieutenants of the capitalist class, the real carriers of reformism and chauvinism.” If the predominant types of workers in the core were labor aristocrats, why are over 60% of them living paycheck to paycheck? (With the inflation that Biden’s Ukraine proxy war has exacerbated, this has become true, even as the average American worker still makes $45k a year.) And why are only a minority of them solid voters for, or active in, the two dominant bourgeois parties? (Because we all know that part of the reason for the USA’s incredibly low electoral participation rates is that much of the country’s population lacks the class status for elections to be accessible to them, or to feel like elections can change things for them.) When most Americans neither earn enough to make them materially comfortable under capitalism by any reasonable definition; nor lack the points of view that would incentivize them to participate in bourgeois politics; then the labor aristocracy represents a minority of the population. 


When the ultras assert or imply that most Americans are labor aristocrats, their arguments don’t rely on the notion that most Americans are prosperous at this stage of our neoliberal rise in inequality. That argument would be too easy to debunk. Instead they tend to appeal to a crude sense of moralism, where their audience is encouraged to feel self-righteous and contemptuous towards the American masses based on a visceral kind of resentment. The true basis for their assertion about Americans lacking revolutionary potential is that because the country’s workers benefit from imperialist extraction in certain ways, these workers have an incurable lack of solidarity with the globe’s workers. That because the people of the United States are and have been complicit in their government’s crimes, we may as well consider the American people synonymous with their government.


It’s easy to see how this kind of thinking is the opposite of helpful. When you discard an entire country’s working class because they have contradictions, you’re showing you don’t care about winning against the bourgeoisie. Only about being right, or at least “right” in your own mind. No revolution can win when those who are supposed to be leading it view virtually everyone within their conditions as enemies. The logical conclusion of this mentality in regards to the imperial center is ironically a highly chauvinistic one. It’s a mentality that encourages Marxists in the U.S. to refrain from engaging in class struggle, and expect revolution to be exported into the core from the neo-colonies. In other words, to refuse to fight against their own government’s imperialist acts, and foist all the responsibility for fighting this government onto the same peripheral peoples whose exploitation these ultra-left “Marxists” benefit from. They’re using the fact that they have contradictions as a rationale for inaction, for viewing their own participation in the liberation struggle as pointless. John Brown, the white resistor of American slavery, wouldn’t be proud of them.


Why are the USA’s workers capable of gaining solidarity with the globe’s workers? Because upon being exposed to revolutionary perspectives, it’s easy for them to come to recognize they have a shared interest with these workers in the transformation of what we now call the “United States” into a socialist society. Into a society that no longer robs the formerly colonized world. 


If this weren’t true, and most Americans were cursed to reject revolutionary consciousness forever, why is there so much evidence so far that U.S. workers are open to gaining anti-imperialist consciousness upon seeing anti-imperialist arguments? Why has willingness to sacrifice American energy abundance and incomes to support the Ukraine war effort dropped among Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike throughout the last half year or so? Why has this widespread dissatisfaction with the ways militarism harms our living standards translated into the spontaneous emergence of an anti-NATO movement? The only thing preventing the further rise of this movement, and thereby the infusion of the country’s labor movement with an anti-imperialist synthesis, is the Democratic Party’s monopoly over organizing spaces. 


This monopoly isn’t the fault of the people, it’s the fault of “the left” as we’ve come to know it. Revolutionary politics has been kept out of the mainstream for so many decades because those who are supposed to represent the class struggle have been cowardly, deciding again and again to compromise on anti-imperialism. As well as to default to the New Left’s liberal “critical theories” which minimize class. These are the theories that let ultras and radical liberals rationalize not viewing the participants in the anti-NATO movement as truly revolutionary, based on the Russiagate-informed idea that being pro-Russian is reactionary. When somebody is informed by these “radical” ideas that are designed to blunt the class struggle, they’ll even reject demonstrable evidence that the people are coming to revolutionary consciousness, vilifying the workers for coming to anti-imperialist ideas.


The idea that the people are terminally incompatible with revolution is among these imperialism-compatible, pseudo-liberation theories. It can only gain perceived credibility among some because it presents itself as radical. With this illusion’s persuasive aspect being that such theory recognizes the realities of imperialism and settler-colonialism, and therefore is the most “radical” set of ideas.


To these ultras who reject doing the work for class struggle on the basis of its supposed futility in the core, serious Marxists can reply: you know that imperialism and settler-colonialism exist, so what? How does the mere awareness of these things qualify somebody to conclude that the people are fundamentally reactionary? Just because somebody has gone down the academic pipeline to be able to articulate these theories about structural inequality, or has absorbed the rhetoric from online thought leaders who’ve gone down this pipeline, doesn’t mean their perspective is worth taking seriously. If somebody is arguing against engaging in the class struggle, we shouldn’t as much as entertain them. We should struggle against their ideas where appropriate, and continue with our revolutionary work.

————————————————————————


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 pinch during 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.

Wednesday, May 24, 2023

Why should communists support Russia? Because this weakens the Democratic Party’s influence over our movement.



Image from the League of Filipino Students

To tell what a person or organization truly believes, don’t look at what they say they believe. Look at what things they show, through their practice, that they prioritize and de-prioritize. This is what we must investigate in order to see who shares the most important goal of communists at the moment. This goal being to break the Democratic Party’s influence over the communist movement, and over the wider liberation struggles.


An easy way to apply this judgement is by seeing what the geopolitical stances of a given political actor are. If they portray Washington’s rivals as imperialist, or claim Russia is in the wrong for carrying out a mission to end U.S.-facilitated ethnic cleansing, they’re clearly incorrect from an anti-imperialist perspective. China is not a capitalist state, Russia is not a fascist state whatever its contradictions, and dialectical analyses of these two countries are able to support what I say. The problem the imperial center’s left has is that there are deep ideological influences within it which prevent its dominant voices both from recognizing these realities about the nature of the new cold war; and which prevent even many who recognize them from doing anything besides simply comprehending the information. To effectively combat the Democratic Party’s co-optation efforts, we have to be counter-hegemonic in our practice, to act like U.S. hegemony is the primary contradiction. 


As Mao said, there are types who merely absorb revolutionary knowledge without sufficiently putting it into practice, who want to have their Marxism and their liberalism at the same time. In our task of defeating opportunism and reformism in the imperial center, we have to avoid becoming those unprincipled actors. Many individuals like this can be found in our modern discourse landscape. They’re quite prevalent on social media especially, and their arguments can easily turn people who could otherwise have become counter-hegemonic into agents for their opportunist cause.


The trait that defines this type of opportunist, the one whose role is to assist the Democratic Party even if they themselves don’t view their role as such, is they substitute anti-imperialism for wokeness. Not “wokeness” in the term’s original sense, which was revolutionary in that it represented consciousness among the black masses about their systemic oppression. I mean wokeness in its modern, opportunistic sense, where elites have captured woke ideas to turn them into tools for reinforcing liberalism. The liberal versions of these ideas that get produced by those elites are then adopted by the types of radicals who don’t care about anti-imperialism. This radical liberal theory gets used as a way to rationalize engaging in the practices that reinforce Democratic Party dominance: neglecting the informational war against imperialism’s psyops; exclusively trying to appeal to liberals; viewing the element of the people who are most compatible with the anti-imperialist movement, and who show this by being pro-Russia, as necessarily reactionary and irredeemable.


These types of practice interrelate with the imperialism-compatible ideas that assist in Democrat foreign policy. If you believe that nobody can be pro-Russia without being right-wing, and that those who are most open to anti-imperialist ideas should be rejected simply because they aren’t all on the left, then naturally you’ll be incentivized to adopt the anti-Russia stance yourself. To believe the psyops the liberal academic intelligentsia and commentators promote, like that Russia is imperialist or fascist, that “Wagner” exists in the way we’ve been told it exists, and that the Russian side is guilty of the war crimes we’ve been told it’s committed. At the least, adopting such radical liberal modes of practice will lead you to apathy about geopolitics and anti-imperialism. To a habit of rejecting actions that counter U.S. hegemony, under the rationale that “we can’t affect these events” or that “our own conditions matter the most.” Such notions are about justifying the act of making wokeness overshadow anti-imperialism, when under a Marxist synthesis the domestic and international aspects of struggle would be reconcilable.


The imperialism-compatible left presents being apathetic about U.S. imperialism as an indicator of pragmatism and wisdom. It purposely underestimates the amount of power we can gain over international affairs, acting like we in the core lack responsibility to resist our government’s global crimes because supposedly we can’t change what happens in this area. The leftists and self-described communists who talk like this lack the type of ideological upbringing that produces those who’ve invested themselves in the information war. Because when you’ve gained experience in this part of the struggle, it’s become clear to you just how powerful the act of combating imperialist psyops can be. 


Our government is alarmed by the idea of its foreign policy narratives being challenged, and has been growing more alarmed lately amid the resistance to the Ukraine proxy war. This is why it’s indicted the Uhuru members and introduced the RESTRICT act, which would criminalize international anti-imperialist outreach. This is why it’s waged a perpetually intensifying censorship campaign against anti-imperialist voices. This is why it’s taken the care to predicate this censorship campaign on the Russiagate psyop, and on the “supporting Russia is reactionary” myth that Russiagate created the foundations for. The centers of power have been showing us that at this stage in the class struggle, their core vulnerability is losing their narrative control. If anti-imperialist perspectives gain too much prominence in mass consciousness, not only will projects like the proxy war be forced to end, but the DNC will lose its status as the gatekeeper of mass movements. 


No longer will Marxism be either prevented from becoming mainstream, or diluted into just another critical theory which liberals incorporate into their ideas. Marxism will be able to gain a strong identity and organizing presence, separate from the Democrats and their insidious influence.


If someone is presenting themselves as an authority on social justice issues, while either rejecting anti-imperialist ideas or barely ever advancing these ideas, it doesn’t matter how “radical” they claim to be. The effect of their decisions is one of helping the Democratic Party. Because like there are anti-woke grifters, there are also woke grifters. The anti-revolutionary, opportunistic nature of our present discourse makes it so that there can be pro-imperialists of both the right-wing and “leftist” varieties. To make the concept of being “woke” into something that again has a revolutionary character, communists ironically need to become more wary of wokeness. Because in a discourse climate with as many grifters and frauds as ours has, usually when you encounter someone who’s eager to let you know they support social justice, they seek to use that to cover up the pro-imperialist nature of their ideas. 


There’s absolutely a place for LGBT liberation, black liberation, the struggle for tribal sovereignty, and so on. These things are intertwined with anti-imperialism and class struggle, so much that the identity struggles are in essence themselves all class struggles. The danger is when a person or organization is preaching for these struggles, while neglecting anti-imperialism and class. When you see that, you know you’re looking at a Democratic Party infiltrator within radical spaces.

————————————————————————


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 pinch during 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.