For four days in July the Democratic Convention occupied the center ring in this year?s electoral circus. Political conventions for the ruling class in America are media events par excellence, as was demonstrated by the fact that media personnel outnumbered delegates 15,000 to 3,000. It was all part and parcel of the bourgeoisie?s efforts to revive the electoral mystification that was so badly tarnished in the debacle of 2000.
Media pundits made it clear that they agreed with Democratic candidate John Kerry that ?this is the most important election of our lifetime. The stakes are high,? as he put it in his acceptance speech. The incessant propaganda message is that this election offers voters a stark choice about the future of America, and humanity, and it would be irresponsible to sit this one out. However when you push aside all the hype and empty rhetoric, it?s quite clear that this election, like all capitalist elections, is an ideological swindle, a charade designed to make the working class falsely believe that democracy works and that government is controlled by the will of the people. Quite the contrary is true: no matter who wins the election in November, the policies of the American government will be substantially the same: the bourgeoisie will still send young workers to fight and die for the interests of American imperialism around the world, especially in Iraq, and the economic crisis will continue to erode the standard of living. Republican and Democratic Foreign Policy Is Essentially the Same
Despite the fury of the criticisms heaped against Bush, the differences between Kerry and Bush on foreign policy are largely secondary, confined to questions of style in the implementation of the same imperialist strategy. All major factions of the American ruling class share the same strategic imperialist goal ? assure that the US maintains its imperialist hegemony as the only remaining superpower by preventing the emergence of any rival power or rival bloc. Kerry?s criticism of Bush focuses on three main points: the botched ideological and propaganda campaign to justify the war; the failure to pressure the major European powers to acquiesce in the war; and the failure to plan an effective occupation of Iraq.
The Bush administration?s ideological and propaganda justifications for the war (WMD, Iraq?s alleged ties to al Qaeda and implied links to 9/11) have all been thoroughly discredited. This seriously undermines the ability of the US to mobilize the population for more wars and military interventions, which is a weakness for American imperialism since the continuing challenges to its dominance require ever more military interventions. It?s not that Kerry rejects Bush?s ideological justifications; his criticism is that Bush?s mistakes have squandered the gains made after 9/11 in whipping up patriotism and war fever. Despite the fact that all of Bush?s rationalizations for the invasion have proven to be outright lies, Kerry still supports the invasion and defends his vote in favor of authorizing the war. Under pressure from barbs from Pres. Bush, Kerry stated that even knowing what he knows today about the situation in Iraq, he would still have voted in favor of the war authorization, but if he were president he would have used the authorization differently, to take the time to secure international support for the war and reconstruction. Since all the arguments used by Bush were lies, presumably Kerry would have told the same lies more effectively or would have conjured up a different batch of more plausible lies.
The capitalist media portrays the foreign policy debate as a clash between Bush?s unilateralism and Kerry?s multilateralism, but this is a gross distortion. Ever since World War II, US imperialism has always acted unilaterally in the defense of its imperialist interests as a superpower. Even during the cold war, when the western bloc was intact, the US always acted on its own initiative and in its own interests, whether it was in intervening in Korea, or in chastising Britain and France for supporting Israel in the invasion of the Sinai in 1956, or the Cuban Missile Crisis , or in Vietnam, or in the decision taken by Carter in the late 1970s, and implemented by Reagan in the early 1980s, to deploy intermediate range nuclear weapons in Europe. As the head of the bloc, the US was easily able to oblige its subordinates in the bloc to go along with its decisions (with the occasional exception of the French bourgeoisie which sometimes acted out its own delusions of independence in resisting American policies).
With the collapse of the bloc system at the end of the 1980s, the cement that held the western bloc together dissolved, the tendency for each nation to try to play its own imperialist card emerged, and the discipline that obliged each member of the bloc to accept American diktats evaporated. It became more difficult for American imperialism to force its will on the other states. The first Gulf War against Iraq in 1991 was more designed to remind its former allies that the US was the only superpower in the world and that it was necessary to follow its leadership, than it was to contain Iraqi imperialist appetites. (After all the American ambassador had purposely misled Saddam Hussein into believing that the US had given Iraq the green light to invade Kuwait in their border dispute when he was told that the US ?would not take sides? in a dispute between Arab brothers.) Throughout the 1990s, even during the Clinton years, American imperialism acted increasingly alone in the international arena when it exercised military force, as it became more and more difficult to pressure the European powers to accept American diktats. So, the extreme unilateralism of the Bush administration in the Iraq invasion, is consistent with the evolution of American policy over the past 15 years and not an abrupt break in policy, even if it is a bit heavy handed and clumsily implemented..
Kerry?s promise that he will bring other nations back into the fold is simply a proposal to be more patient and more effective in the efforts to get them to accept American policy, not a promise to abandon unilateralism. In his acceptance speech, Kerry said, ?I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.? So, like Bush, he wouldn?t let the United Nations Security Council block the US from waging a war, when the US government decides it is necessary to do so. In the final analysis no matter who is president, American imperialism will continue to act unilaterally. Kerry and the Democrats Are Just as Much a War Party as the GOP
Anyone who thinks this election is a clash between hawks and doves needs to have his/her head examined. Kerry may have been briefly involved in the anti-Vietnam war movement in the early 1970s after his two tours of duty in Vietnam, but he and the Democrats made it abundantly clear at the convention that they are just as blood thirsty and dedicated to waging imperialist war as their Republican counterparts. It was no accident that the Democrats paraded 12 retired generals and admirals on the stage at the convention, and produced a special film in which these military giants explained how the strategic and diplomatic errors of the Bush administration in implementing American strategic goals were weakening America in the world. Kerry and his generals made a bid to show that it is the Democrats who are better able to mobilize the population for war, challenging the right?s claim to a monopoly on patriotism. Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark said, ?This flag is ours! And nobody will take it from us.? Kerry said, ?For us, that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in. Our strength. Our diversity. Our love of country. All that makes America both great and good.
?That flag doesn?t belong to any president. It doesn?t belong to any ideology and it doesn?t belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people.? Kerry criticized Bush for squandering all the unity and patriotic fervor that gripped the population in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He promises to regain that unity in support of American imperialism by making patriotism palatable again for workers and all those disenchanted with the war in Iraq and putting forth believable arguments for war. Kerry also promises to ?build a stronger American military,? by increasing the armed forces by 40,000, doubling ?our special forces to conduct antiterrorist operations,? and developing new weapons and technology. Not exactly a peace candidate.
In the final analysis, the ?most important election of our lifetime? boils down to a choice between two candidates who offer differ styles in mobilizing the population for and unleashing imperialist war. This surely is the hallmark of freedom in capitalist democracy, a system that offers death, destruction, terror, and repression, no matter who wins the election.
J. Grevin, Aug. 16, 2004
In the last few days, the situation in Iraq has once again returned to the front pages of the bourgeois daily papers. The latest attempt of the US forces to crush the radical shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his ?Mahdi army? in their Najaf stronghold has spurred a new wave of violence across Iraq, from the slums of Baghdad to practically all Shiite cities of southern Iraq. Cities and towns are being bombed and hit by rockets, adding untold numbers of dead and injured to the growing list of victims in this latest example of capitalist barbarism. The much ballyhooed ?return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people? at the end of June notwithstanding, after over a over one year since ?major hostilities? were declared over, the war shows no signs of abating. The American casualties of war are reaching one thousand soldiers dead while thousands have been injured and condemned to a life of physical pain and psychological problems. And regardless of the many promises that preceded the US invasion of Iraq, there won?t be road to a prosperous, peaceful and ?democratic? Iraq.
A year after the overthrow of Sadam Hussein the rationalizations that the American bourgeoisie used to launch its war against Iraq have been exposed to be nothing but gross fabrications. Today even school children know that the Bush administration lied about the whole issue of ?weapons of mass destruction? in supposedly in the possession of the Iraqi regime. The very people that the American paid to find Iraq?s secret weapons and illicit armaments programs have concluded that there were no such things after all. The same goes for the supposed involvement of Sadam Hussein in the September 11 attacks to New York and Washington. The reality is that there has never been any evidence to substantiate the Bush administration?s claim of links between Sadam Hussein and the terrorists of al Qaeda.
Now the actions to crush the new Shiite uprising and the behavior of the brand new ?Iraqi government? are putting a couple more nails in the coffin of the much worn-out American political credibility.
The US invaded Iraq, the myth goes, among other things, in order to ?liberate? the oppressed Shiite population that Saddam Hussein had so ruthlessly victimized. The massacres that ended the 1991 Shiite uprising were used as one more proof of the immorality of Iraq?s regime. In this regard, it is worth remembering that after the first Gulf war, the US encouraged the Shiite population to revolt but left the butcher of Baghdad enough military force to easily suppress the rebellion. Nevertheless, despite being let down previously by American imperialism, when the US invaded Iraq last year, the Shiite population welcomed of the US ?liberators,? even if they did not join in the fighting. Now it is within this same Shiite population that the opposition and hatred for the Americans is among the strongest in Iraq. Last May, after battling Moqtada Al-Sadr?s militia for over a month, the US reached a face-saving political compromised that averted an all-out assault against the holy city of Najaf and other strongholds of its supporters. Now, at a time when the Bush administration is so much in need of being to point to some kind of success of its policy in Iraq, the US seems to have gone back to square one. Neither a military solution nor a new political compromise with Al-Sadr and his supporters can help the US out of the quagmire in Iraq. At the military level, despite the fact that unlike last April, it has the option of using the resurrected ?Iraqi army? as a first line of attack, thus putting an Iraqi face to its military operations, still an all-out military assault to crush Al-Sadr and his supporters will further alienate the Shiite population and discredit even more the puppet government of Iyad Allawi. On the other hand a political compromise with Al-Sadar and his militia has no better chance of success and can only erode more American political credibility. It is this dilemma that explains the constant change of course and hesitations of the US and its creature, the Iraqi ?provisional government,? in dealing with the new Shiite uprising. Meanwhile the carnage goes on sinking the whole population in a nightmarish situation far removed from the promise of peace and prosperity that the US used to justify the overthrow of Sadam Hussein.
Regarding its self-proclaimed mission of bringing ?democracy? to Iraq, US actions are also in blatant contrast to its promises. Faced with an obvious crisis in its military adventure in Iraq, the Bush administration has been trying recently to give same credence to its suppose intention, as Bush said, of ?helping the long suffering people of Iraq to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East.? Now the US version of this ?decent and democratic? Iraq is its new puppet government led by Iyad Allawi an ex-Bathist head of an exile organization, the so called Iraqi National Accord, made up largely of ex-Baathist military officers, backed by the CIA and Britain?s MI6, known for planting car bombs in downtown Baghdad in the 1990?s. Mr. Allawi has lost no time in showing his democratic colors reinstating the death penalty for more or less all acts of rebellion, instituting a curfew in Sadr city and banning the Arab television network Al-Jazeera.
Despite the Bush administration?s promise that the invasion of Iraq would lead to peace, democracy, and stability, not only in Iraq, but in all of the Middle East, the situation is completely the opposite. The war rages on, the stillborn ?democracy? implements repression that the Americans could never have dared to impose as an occupying power, ?prosperity? is not even a relevant word, the country faces greater instability, and the chaos is spreading throughout the Middle East.
Eduardo Smith.
The US war of independence, 1776-1783, helped unify the new bourgeois class in North America, defined the nation-state and, therefore, sped up the development of capitalism. The consolidation of capitalism as a system, along with the extension of the market, shaped the American bourgeoisie?s perception of the European colonial powers, then present in the American continent as dominant forces, as enemies to fight on the economic and military terrains. This aspect of the dynamic of capitalism led the US to develop the Monroe doctrine (1823), which it used to shape the diplomatic argument in support of the national independence movements in the Latin American countries. In fact, though, it would be a threat to the old colonial powers of Europe, insofar as the declaration of ?America for the Americans? presented by the Doctrine, served a mechanism for the American bourgeoisie to define the American continents as territory under its own domination, and thus designated Latin America as its own ?backyard?.
It is clear that the domination of the US on the continent is due to the economic difficulties in Latin America, which prevented the dynamic of accumulation of capital to occur at the same rate as in the North. We need to underline, though, that this backwardness is also attributed to political difficulties, which prevented the unification of the bourgeoisie and the perspective of the unification of the Latin American nation-states. The degree of dispersion was so high that well into the middle of the 19th century in a great part of the Latin American continent internal conflicts existed which destroyed the social fabric and did not allow capitalism to proceed in the destruction of the vestiges of old modes of production. About the understanding of how such conflicts cause a ?delay? in the development of history, Engels, following the same idea exposed by Marx in the ?Communist Review? #1, London, 1847, wrote in ?The Revolutionary Movements of 1847?: ?We have witnessed with satisfaction the defeat of Mexico by the United States. This represents an advancement, because when a country is up to its neck in imbroglio, perpetually weakened by civil wars and with no way out for its own development (?) when this country is forcefully pushed into historical development, we can?t help but regard this as a step forward. In the interests of its own development, it was appropriate that Mexico fell under the ?protection? of the United States.? The Politics of Strangulation: An expression of capitalist decadence
It was in this way that the development of capitalism in North America and the backwardness in the rest of the continent helped establish the ties of domination by Uncle Sam (1). By the end of the 19th century the US had widened its territorial extension through the military invasion of Mexico and the domination of Puerto Rico and Cuba with the Treaty of Paris (1898). Doubtlessly, this tendency was reinforced when the system entered its period of decadence, around the first decades of the 20th century. During this period, the US used the ?Roosevelt corollary?(1904) to justify its right to invade Latin American territories where American property was endangered. The US? threatening and belligerent attitude was confirmed by the expansion of its economic and military power over Panama and its canal. Although the US stayed out of the first imperialist butchery of 1914 until 1917, it continued to strengthen its dominance over all the Americas. Its power widened globally through its participation in the Second World War, and was consolidated through the formation of the Western Bloc and the beginning of the Cold War. During this period of imperialist struggles between the two blocs (US and USSR), the US did not cease to pay attention to and be aggressive toward its ?allies?, the minor Latin American imperialisms. The US took special care that the imperialist forces of the opposing bloc (the USSR) did not intrude in the continent (2). This situation gave birth to the Organization of American States, with programs such as the ?Alliance for Progress?, and the structuring of the ?Schools for the Americas? (founded in 1946 in Panama for the military training and the ?teaching? of torture to Latin American soldiers) along with military incursions, among others: Guatemala (1954), Dominican Republic (1965), Granada (1983. We should not forget the long list of coup d?etats directed by the US in the South American countries during the 70?s. The ?danger of the Soviet bloc? was used by the US as a pretext to justify its invasions of the Latin American countries. When the Soviet bloc fell the new ?world order? of peace and prosperity which the US promised did not materialize in Latin America or anywhere else in the world. Plan Colombia: Uncle Sam reasserts its power in Latin-America
Contrary to the propaganda spread by the bourgeoisie, the collapse of the Stalinist bloc has not brought the ?reign of peace?. Rather, the loss of the underlying reason for the adherence of imperialist countries in a bloc (the confrontation with the other bloc), formed the basis for the tendency toward continuous confrontations, and the loss of a lasting framework for cohesion. In this ?new order?, various imperialist forces have challenged the leadership of the US, to the point where they have established a presence in Latin America, violating the sanctity ofUncle Sam?s backyard. Since the fall of the Eastern bloc, anti-US feelings have proliferated within the every Latin American bourgeoisie, as in the case of Fujimori and his overtures to Japanese imperialism, the birth of the Zapatista National Liberation Front (EZLN), which is supported by various European imperialist powers, and the attention given to Cuba by European capital. Lately, H. Chavez of Venezuela has become a problem for the US, not because his government puts in question the capitalist relations of production, but because it can be converted into a beachhead through which rival imperialist forces can intervene in Venezuela and the rest of Latin America.
Faced with the continuous threat by its imperialist rivals, the US hopes to regain its leadership by means of force, as demonstrated in Iraq, and even if Latin America does not pose the same level of confrontation in terms of political, military, or economic strategic issues as the Middle East, and therefore does not require actions of the same magnitude, the necessity to strengthen US power over the area is not diminished. This is why with the so-called Plan Colombia (Pl-Co) (3), the US hopes to regain its power over the South American continent as a whole.
Using the fight against drug trafficking and the Colombian guerrillas -over which the US is more and more losing control, and which open the door to the support or the intervention of European capital- as a pretext, the US has implemented a process of militarization by which it will soon ?remind? the local bourgeoisies of which political alliances they have to follow. The US military presence is a threat for anti-US sentiments. Although it cannot mobilize a great number of soldiers (it has only deployed 500, officially), and its attention is for now focused on the Middle East, the US utilizes Colombian, Ecuadorian, Peruvian, and Panamanian soldiers in a military unit to keep control of the southern horn, opening out from Colombia..
This military project obviously shows how desperate North American capital is to regain lost terrain. Most importantly, this expresses the level of barbarism attained by capitalism. In fact, not only are the bombings of civilian populations activated (at levels that are at times greater than the ones reached in El Salvador during the confrontations of the 80?s against the guerrillas), but also, highly toxic chemicals are being used to destroy coca plantations (4), causing the displacement of great numbers of people who, in the process, become pauperized.
The implementation of Pl-Co has produced a slow but steady process which has not stopped in the face of the claims made by European imperialist powers. In October 2000, the spokesperson for the European Union (EU), Renaud Vignal, in an open criticism of the North American project said: ?Plan Colombia is not my plan?The position of the French government and the EU regarding Plan Colombia is that it?s not our business?. In the same way, at the 2nd Conference of Latin America, the Caribbean, and the European Union (ALCUE, 2002), the European powers made a ?subtle? critique of Pl-Co by calling for a ?negotiated solution?. This caused alarm in the US, and that?s why it has been fixed up a bit in certain areas which could raise doubts about its purpose or cause discontent among the Latin-American bourgeoisie. It was at the 3rd ALCUE (May 2004) that, although the US did not participate, its presence was felt through the announcement that the Mexican government, which traditionally has played the role of the US? ?best man? in Latin America, will establish ties with sectors of the Colombian guerrillas, in particular with the National Liberation Front to negotiate the disarmament. Ties will not be established with the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolutionarias de Colombia), which has been so close to the European Union that at the time of the government-FARC ?dialog? in 2002, the EU agreed to discuss financial support with the guerrillas. The US rapprochement with the NLF allows for the neutralization of forces over which the US had lost control, while at the same time preparing the terrain for a better development of its military adventure.
Latin America has been traditionally under the political control of the US, but if it is to be so in the future, it is necessary to strengthen the US military presence in order to stop ?the radical positions [which fuel] anti-American feelings?, as mentioned in the March 2004 report by J.Hill, Chief of the Southern Command.
Under these circumstances, the working class cannot take sides for any of the disputing imperialist forces. Neither can it get involved in the ?defense of the nation?. The only alternative the working class has in the face of the acceleration of war and barbarism in Latin America, as in the rest of the world, is the combat against the real cause of humanity?s sufferings: capitalism.
Tatlin, July 2004.
Notes:
1. This process of domination is the product of the predatory nature of capitalism and it does not have a solution. This is why the nationalist and ?independentist? ideas postulated by the ?Latin-America economic school?, promoted by the UNO through CEPAL in the 60?s and 70?s, and which are nostalgically used today by the left apparatus of capital, are false.
2. It?s important to remember that in preparation for WWII the US led -or at least complacently allowed, as the British government expressed it ? the oil expropriation of Mexico. Although this benefited North American companies mostly, and above all the Sinclair Pierce Group, it also negatively affected the British oil companies, and, by means of the ?good neighbor policy?, the Mexican oil production became tied up with the US war economy.
3. Plan Colombia (1998) was initially called ?Plan of development for Colombia?s south?.
4. Some reporters point out that ?fusarim oxyporum? is spread indiscriminately. This chemical, they say, caused ebola in Africa.
We are daily being bombarded with propaganda about how absolutely important the election is this year from the media, politicians, labor leaders, clergy, academia, civil rights leaders, rock stars, movie stars, and anti-war movement leaders ? from all the institutions that prop up the capitalist state. We are told that this is the most crucial election in our lifetime, that the future of humanity literally hangs in the balance. But it?s all a load of nonsense.
The differences between Bush and Kerry are minimal - confined to secondary issues of style, different approaches to implementing the same goals. They share the same commitment to maintaining US imperialist hegemony, the same strategic goal of preventing the emergence of any country that could challenge US domination as the world?s only superpower. They both support the war in Iraq. They both seek to whip up patriotic fever so they can plunge us into still more wars in the years ahead. They both pledge to strengthen the armed forces and thus accelerate the militarization of American society. They both support increasing state repression ? Bush through the US Patriot Act and Kerry through his pledge to implement immediately the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which include establishment of a domestic espionage network that will dwarf anything the FBI ever did. They both defend capitalism and the ruthless exploitation of the working class, in the US and around the world.
Sure, they appear to diverge sharply on secondary social questions like abortion, ecology, and stem cell research, but these are hot button issues that the capitalist class doesn?t really plan to ever resolve one way or the other. They cynically use these controversies to to whip up political emotions and distract attention from the fundamental problems of capitalism?s economic crisis and the class struggle. These divergences are more for show than anything else.
Today, elections have lost any meaning except as a mystification, as a means to confuse, trick and manipulate the working class into thinking it was ?free.? Bourgeois democracy is in fact the most sophisticated and pernicious form of class dictatorship the world has ever seen, the class dictatorship of capitalism. In the period of capitalism?s development when elections mattered, the bourgeoisie resisted the expansion of the franchise tooth and nail. Now that elections are useless except as an ideological mystification they keep expanding the franchise, making it easier and easier to register and vote ? because they want to suck more people into the charade.
For the working class, it is meaningless to participate in deciding which capitalist politician will be the titular head of the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. For the working class, it is the class struggle, the uncompromising defense of working class interests, that is the only thing that makes sense. It is this struggle, which inevitably puts the working class into confrontation with the state, that holds the seeds of the revolutionary struggle that is capable of destroying the capitalist state and its horrid economic system, and making possible the creation of a genuinely human social community, led and controlled by the working class, organized in workers councils. In such a society the guiding principle will be the fulfillment of social need, not the exploitation of labor and drive for profits. Whoever wins in November the fundamental orientation of the American state will be the same ? imperialist war abroad and austerity at home.
Internationalism, August 17, 2004.
The following letter to the editor was sent to Red & Black Notes in response to an article by Loren Goldner analyzing the California grocery workers strike which was published in issue #19 of that publication. Internationalism.
While we wouldn't use the same words or formulations, there are certainly many things in Loren Goldner's 'Notes on Another Defeat for Workers in the US: The Los Angeles Supermarket Strike of 2003-2004,' which was published Red & Black Notes #19, that are on the right track. For example, we agree that the grocery workers' fight was an important strike for American workers in the struggle to resist capitalist attacks on their living standards in the form of cutbacks in their medical benefits and that it ended in a serious defeat. It's also accurate to say that the strikers were militant and enthusiastic, and that other workers were sympathetic and wanted to demonstrate their solidarity. Who could disagree with observations that the unions followed the same 'localist and legalist strategies of so many losing strikes of previous years,' that the union kept the strikers 'under control, and that 'no mass meetings were held to discuss strike strategy.' And it is clear that 'the decisive factor in the defeat was the absence of any challenge to the union strategy from the UFCW rank-and-file.'
However, the article falls terribly short in explaining why this terrible defeat occurred. Goldner doesn't seem to understand why the unions persist is such disastrous tactics year after year. He thinks perhaps that 'they underestimated the willingness and ability of the three chains to lose millions of dollars in order to break the power of the unions,' or that 'it is possible that the UFCW leadership in Southern California thought they could win, based on the early momentum, not realizing that the supermarkets had national backing and a national strategy.' Essentially, Goldner's explanation boils down to this: the union leaders underestimated, they didn't realize, they didn't understand. In other words, they made mistakes. A possible implication of such an analysis could be that different union leaders smart enough understand their adversaries and to use different strategies and tactics could have won the strike - though of course Goldner's article does not specifically advocate such a reformist, leftist view.
This kind of analysis is totally inadequate. It reflects a wrong understanding of the class nature of trade unions in this period of capitalism. First of all, this struggle was not an attempt to 'break the power of the unions,' as Goldner suggests. It was all about cutting the standard of living of the working class, pure and simple. It is usually the unions and their leftist choir groups that raise the 'union busting' slogan as a way to divert attention from the true nature of the bosses' attacks on the workers, often as a way to celebrate an allege 'victory' when the union's 'security' is maintained even as the workers suffer wage cuts and layoffs. If anything, in this strike, it was the power of the unions that was used effectively to defeat the strike and help American capitalism as a whole, and not just the three national corporations involved, to achieve a significant victory in scaling back the medical benefits for American workers.
The supermarket strike failed because the strike remained firmly under union control from start to finish and trade unions are no longer organizations of the working class. Unions once were defensive organizations of the working class in an earlier period capitalist development, but for nearly a century since the period of the First World War they been integrated into the state apparatus of capitalism. As we wrote in Internationalism 130, "unions are part of the capitalist state, the arm of the ruling class, charged with the specific function of controlling the working class, and rendering its anger, combativeness, and solidarity harmless for capitalism. The lesson that workers must remember is that the way to advance the struggle is to push aside the unions and take control of the struggle into their own hands." In the supermarket strike, the unions and the union leaders didn't make any mistakes; they did the job that they are supposed to do for capitalism - and they did it quite well.
Internationalism June 24, 2004.
Despite the fact that the Democratic convention was an orgy of flag waving patriotism and war mongering, the so-called anti-war movement did not march in the streets. This movement demonstrated clearly that it is an appendage of the Democratic party with the specific function of controlling and manipulating the growing discontent with the imperialist war in Iraq for purposes of the factional disputes within the bourgeoisie. All the anti-war spokespersons within the Democratic party abandoned their opposition to the war for the sake of party unity in defeating Bush. Howard Dean, whose whole campaign in the primaries was based on a denunciation of the war and a call for withdrawal from Iraq, voiced his support for Kerry. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the self-styled ?progressive? candidate, who had previously called for the creation of a Department of Peace in the cabinet, likewise squelched his anti-war perspective, as did Ted Kennedy and Al Sharpton. Tom Hayden, the former SDS leader, a member of the Chicago Seven who faced federal charges for his role in leading protests at the 1968 Chicago convention, called upon the anti-war movement not to protest or disrupt the Democratic convention, but to support efforts to elect Kerry and defeat Bush. Farenheit 9/11 filmmaker Michael Moore not only voiced his support for the Democrats but promised to take his cameras to Florida on election day to make sure that the Republicans didn?t steal this election, like they did in 2000.Despite their leftist credentials, the leaders of United for Peace and Justice, which took the lead in organizing the massive protests on the eve of the Iraq war, also lined up behind the Democratic party, ignoring the Democratic war mongering. Instead they concentrated their efforts on organizing an anti-Bush demonstration at the Republican convention in New York at the end of August.
Links
[1] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/17/189/us-presidential-elections-2004
[2] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/17/253/us-elections
[3] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/war-iraq
[4] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/50/united-states
[5] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/south-and-central-america
[6] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/1848/mexico
[7] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/186/imperialism
[8] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/20/parliamentary-sham
[9] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/outside-communist-left
[10] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/class-struggle
[11] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/leftism