What is New Democracy?
Reading the extensive propaganda published by this group (if it is really a group) in Discussion Bulletin and on its Web site, one would hope to find some references regarding its origins, political evolution or some claim of political affiliation. Wishful thinking! ND actually seems to have come from nowhere with some ready-made ideological remedies to the problems of today’s society. This political attitude of hiding one’s past, or pretending to be discoverers of political principles, is already quite suspect about the real political motivations of this group, mistrust that only grows as one goes to the essential content of its printed materials.
Reading ND documents one learns that it stands for, as developed in its "Statement of Principles," "a revolution to create a real democracy;" this revolution is necessary and possible, basically, because the present system is unjust, and "most people want the new world that only revolution can bring." And what is the social force of this revolution? "Ordinary people." It affirms that "revolution is possible because the struggle of ordinary people to humanize the world is the force that drives history."
On the other hand, by its own assertions, ND is "firmly opposed to marxism" and communism. In fact, as they say their raison de etre is to fight marxism: "Our goal in New Democracy is to spread an alternative to marxism" which to ND’s despair "unfortunately continues to be the only coherent and systematic model of social change posed as a revolutionary challenge to capitalism." And certainly, true to this open declaration of intentions, ND does not waste any opportunity in its documents to sneer at all the basics of Marxist theory, from historical materialism to communist revolution, proposing instead ND’s own alternative "model of social change and revolution" based on the "working pepole’s values of equality, solidarity, and democracy".
Thus ND is a group which poses as revolutionary, but whose real function is – even by its own account – to attack marxism: Attacks which it carries out quite well with the historically characteristic class hate that, ever since the appearance of the Communist Manifesto, the bourgeoisie has shown against marxism all over the world.
The methods of these attacks are – as they have been before ND – the most outrageous falsifications of marxist views, as well as the most servile repetition of the mountains of lies that the bourgeoisie has heaped against the working class movement during the last century.
Among these lies ND privileges, just as the bourgeoisie has done worldwide in the ‘democratic’ capitalist countries as well as in the "communist" ones, the lies that equate the now disappeared monstrous state capitalist regimes of Russia and its statellites with communism, and Stalinist ideology with Marxism. In a flyer entitled "the future of democratic revolution: why did communism fail?" ND esentially repeats these lies, adding its own little contribution to the bourgeosie’s campaign that equates stalinism with communism. According to ND the Russian Revolution of 1917 failed not only because it was communist but " because it was undemocratic" and guided by marxism which has "a negative view of working people, seeing them as "dehumanized" and motivated merely by self-interest. (Leading it) to play an anti-democratic and counterrevolutionary role." Of course ND is not referring here to the actual failure of the Russian revolution at the beginning of the 1920’s due to the isolation of the Russian proletarian bastion brought by the defeat of the revolutionary uprisings of the working class in other main capitalist countries of the epoch, but to the collapse of the Stalinist regimes at the beginning of the 90’s.
So again what is New Democracy? Since we understand, in accord with marxism, that political groups are the organized political expression of class interests, we recognize ND--because of its political activity-- is in a general sense a bourgeois group, whose main funtion is to spread distrust in the revolutionary traditions of marxism. However, ND, in its main field of action, seems more precisly to be an organized effort of the bourgeoisie to infiltrate the so-called "non-market, anti-statist, libertarian socialist" political milieu of which Discussion Bulletin is the main forum. And one cannot but be amazed by the welcome given to ND by people such as the DeLeonists that still have not officially renounced marxism. It is not accidental that ND has targeted this milieu and particulary its DeLeonist components. In fact, ND is preying in the DeLeonist milieu’s own confusions about bourgeois democracy and marxism, which we have often criticized. We think that it is time for this milieu to react and take a stand against ND’s activities and in particular for "Discussion Bulletin" to stop being a willing vehicle of the propaganda of this group.
Lastly, we want to express our solidarity with the criticisms that comrade ASm from Internationalist Notes (2) has made of this group in the Jan-Feb issue of "Discussion Bulletin." In particular, he is probably right to say that ND "platform is hardly more than a substitution of words…of those statements from organizations that spring from a marxist background." In other words ND has not really an alternative theory to marxism, and its obliged, in order to sound meaningful and coherent, to STEAL some marxist conceptions, taking them out of context and emptying them of revolutionary content, and then presenting the result of this abortion as ND’s own "theory of social change".
Eduardo Smit Eduardo Smith.
1.-Discussion Bulletin. PO Box 1564, Grand Rapids, MI 49501.
2.- Internationalist Notes PO Box 1531 Eau Claire, WI 54702
This was a social outrage. A demonstration beyond doubt of the license to kill that has been granted to the police to kill ‘suspects’
This man who was murdered was an immigrant to the United States from Africa
The Diallo killing is not the only incident in which police have clearly used inexcusable force in situations where there was not crime taking place
It is one of the most highly publicized, blatant incidents. The complete exoneration in a jury trial is a warning to the population at large
We understand and share the outrage. But outrage is not enough. The ruling class is turning the outrage of workers against the working class itself by unleashing a campaign of democratic mystification. The slogan of ‘no justice, no peace’ is senseless. Under capitalism there can never be justice nor peace. The campaign for better police--minority relations, the calls for more black or Hispaniccalls for more black or Hispanic cops, for more sensitivity training, for more ‘community meetings’ is designed to steer the outrage into meaningless campaigns to reform capitalism’s most hideous aspect--its repressive apparatus. As before, capitalism kills and uses its cops to do so. To end police brutality, we must end capitalism
Diallo was a victim of a ‘street crimes group’ within the police department under Mayor Giuliani’s administration. What is important to understand is not just the anger of so much of the population in New York, not just the fear among the people in the city. It is not just the recognition that the police and the government in one of the largest cities in the world support the shooting of citizens ‘suspected’ of criminal intentions
What is crucial to understand is the connection of the government, the state, to the general population and in particular the working class. The government, despite all the rhetoric of democracy and service to the people, is not in place to be the friend and advocate of the vast majority of the population. The working class and the poor can have no realistic expectation that their needs will be addressed by the state. Only the corporations and the bureaucrats and the wealthy can have such expectations fulfilled under the current system
For all the talk of the victory of freedom and democracy which has been around since the collapse of the old Russian bloc... for all the talk of America as ‘the land of liberty’.... what is happening as the living and working conditions continue on their downward spiral, even as the stock markets, riding high on speculation, go up and up, is that the majority of the population in general, neither shares in the wealth nor feels safe walking the streets in the cities of America, big or small
This is not simply an American problem, although Americans on a daily basis are aware of crime in their community, and what seems worse, the violence perpetrated on the population by the so-called defenders of law and order
The continuing and genuine economic crisis of world capitalism, most often masked by the media reports via television, radio and the press, which glamorize the wealthy who make money on the roulette wheels of speculation
The situation for the vast majority in the US and around the world, even including most of the strongest economies in the world, continues in a downward direction, in terms of real income and in living conditions
Violence perpetrated among the poor and ‘lumpenized’ population may be real, as desperate people strive to survive, but the greater violence comes from the greater violence comes from the government, from the state, which launches teams of armed men and women in uniforms and in plain clothes to keep the people in line through intimidation and violence. The population of major cities in the US are not simply afraid of violence on the streets, today in cities, like New York, are afraid of those so-called friends and defenders of the people, the police, who regularly shoot and beat people who are in the ‘wrong place at the wrong time.’ The working class needs to have no illusions in the police. They are armed bands of men and women in service to the state, which does not represent the needs of the vast majority, but defends the interest of the ruling class
We must never let ourselves acclimate to the police terror of the state.
-- E. Fischer
By the end of the first Super Tuesday primary elections, the campaigns of Bill Bradley and John McCain were stopped. Gore and Bush, the front runners from the beginning, had each reached the point where the two ‘also-ran’ candidates, made of show of deciding that it was not likely that anyone could block their more ‘popular’ respective candidacies. What was most probable in the primary campaigns of the two major parties, was that Bill Bradley and John McCain both ran without the expectation or even the intention of winning their parties’ respective nominations for the presidency. The fact that there was competition in the early races, appearing to make it a ‘horse race’, allowed for a better and more interesting show for the general population and a reinforcement of the credibility of the electoral system in the US. In reality, most of the decisions as to who becomes cisions as to who becomes the candidates of the major parties, are routinely determined outside the glare of public scrutiny and the elections will be manipulated by politicians in concert with the media.
While there may be some specific differences on political points, the issues separating Bush (a center/right candidate) and Gore (a center/left candidate) are not very major. In fact, the most major policy decision seems to have been taken in the loss of McCain. It was McCain who had the strongest policy difference among the four candidates. McCain had differences on the level of foreign policy, particularly concerning relations with China.
Since the Nixon presidency, the US has placed strong emphasis on developing relations with China, seeing the China card as essential to its influence in Asia. China is the most populous country in the world, a nuclear power and over time may become a major trading partner with the US. In fact Asia itself has become a serious concern within the American ruling class. With huge and increasing populations in Asian countries, from India and Pakistan, which are now both in possession of nuclear bomb, to Bengla Desh, Indonesia and Malaysia, this portion of the world has potential for major conflicts in terms of civil wars and international conflicts. Of courseternational conflicts. Of course, the US move to strengthen its links of policy and trade with China have increased the level of tension with one of the most powerful economies in the world, Japan. Japan’s dominant class, without doubt, sees its country as the most obvious and strongest contender for leadership in the region.
Since the 1970’s, the American Presidents’ foreign policy was oriented toward friendly links to China, even when some embarrassments occurred, as in the case of state secrets being leaked to China. This has been the policy despite the fact that Japan is more stable than China. In this year’s primary campaigns, the only major presidential hopeful who voiced disagreements with the general orientation of foreign policy with regard to China, was McCain. And McCain was clearly defeated by Bush. The race in the Republican primaries was therefore much more significant than the counterpart in the Democratic party.
Since the collapse of the cold war with the eastern bloc and the subsequent disappearance of the western bloc (the end of the ‘cold war’), there has been a renewed debate about the China policy. It was this dispute on policy which behind the scenes led to the impeachment process against Clinton. The faction among the AmericThe faction among the American ruling circles which opposed a pro-China policy used the Lewinsky affair and other Clinton missteps to attempt to replace the president. But the anti-China fraction was so badly defeated by the end of the impeachment trial, they have not been able to mount a meaningful challenge to the leading factions in the major parties. The anti-China fraction was represented by the candidacy of McCain, who could only make a symbolic show of opposition.
Bradley’s campaign may have stimulated interest in the Democratic primary elections for a while, but his participation did not represent any real, divergent political viewpoint so much as a different personality. What his campaign accomplished was to generate more interest in the Democratic race, than if Gore was the only Democrat running. Without a primary race in the Democratic party, Gore’s campaign would have had much less publicity and press, and might have been hurt relative to the ultimate campaign against George W. Bush.
With a ‘compassionate conservative’ in George W. Bush and a moderate liberal in Al Gore both running for president, the race for president may boil down to shades of nuance. They are both reasonably placed toward the center of American ruling class politics. Both Gore and Bush are olitics. Both Gore and Bush are sons of powerful American politicians. Al Gore’s father had a long career as Senator from Tennessee and George Bush (the elder) was Head of the CIA, Vice President for eight years under Reagan and President for four years.
Of course, their family lineage is not in itself important except to the extent that we can see that both have strong ruling class backgrounds and are well positioned among the powerful elite in American politics. The fact is, though, that the politicians, the media and others who have worked so hard to manipulate the races in both parties, have made it clear that they do not want accidents or loose cannons. They want a President who has grown up solidly ensconced in the families of the power elite and who is hopefully well prepared to carry on the tradition of political power and leadership.
The joker in the deck, this election year, may turn out to come from a third party run by the likes of Pat Buchanan or some one else on the Reform Party ticket. This party initially put in place with the funding and political force of Ross Perot has continued on and may very well run a candidate for president, potentially impacting the election results. Buchanan’s ability to siphon off right wing votes from the Republican party may once again contrlican party may once again contribute to the loss of a Presidential vote for another George Bush.
What is clear, as of this writing, is that the candidates for President have been carefully screened and put into place, with campaigns that only gave an illusion to the voters that they had impact on the decision of the primary season. The politics supported by each major party nominee is not all that far from the political position of his opponent for the coming election. While this helps to avoid any dangerous surprises in the outcome, it also leaves room for manipulation, via media manipulation and third party campaigns (Reform Party), to get the results most beneficial from the ruling class point of view for the next four years.
What the working class wants and needs is by no means helped by the coming elections. The terrain for workers to fight for the concerns and necessities is the terrain of the class struggle. Whoever gets elected, Bush or Gore, will be the express agent of the capitalist class, and no real friend of the working class. It is only the class struggle itself -- and not the capitalist electoral process -- which will make possible the real and lasting improvement of working and living conditions for the working class. Ultimately, the working class has to confront capitalism, its barbarism and its exploitation to allow an end to capitalist decadence and the growing barbarism, and the construction of a new social order based on the rule of the vast majority of the population.
-- Eric Fischer