<blockquote>Funds should be cut off, soldiers should resist, protests should be organized, the machinery of war exposed, the complicity in empire called out, and we should participate in the mobilization of global public opinion:

<b>Yankee go home! </blockquote></b>

I couldn’t agree more, and would highlight “we should participate in the mobilization of global public opinion.”

Since Wednesday, after Obama’s “plan” (and justifications) was “unveiled” I have received 15+ incensed emails from various progressive organizations basically (with some variations on the theme) calling for the above. Instead of swallowing the line of the “administration”, there are numerous calls to step up anti-war, even anti-imperialist, activity—not only contrary to the war against and occupation of Afghanistan (and Pakistan), but against U.S.’ wars in general and its policing on a world scale. One organization saying, “we need to be relentless in our fight.”

Of course there are different takes on all this, and for appearances sake, within the bourgeoisie, even many in the normally overtly Hawkish-Republican camp are calling for military withdrawal (they recognize the way the tide has turned and are putting their own spin on things). There’s the “isolationists”, “we can’t afford (monetarily) these wars,” and that the $$ spent on “this war” is better spent, and should be spent on “fixing the system “at “home,” (another illusion sown), etc. The Repubs. are suddenly concerned about the War Powers Act when it comes to Libya…could've cared less when it came to the invasion and war against Iraq. (Don’t get me wrong…the majority of Democrats aren’t any better, maybe with the exception of a loose cannon like Barbara Lee of CA—who was the only Congress-person to vote against the invasion of Iraq in the first place.)

The point is…this is one of those moments where there are real cracks and portends of disaster for the empire and its rulers, mostly embodied in both imperialist war but also the imperialists’ global economic crisis. And the tide has begun to turn in a very real way, certainly in terms of public opinion. Mike quoted 64% against the war in Afghanistan; by all accounts I’ve only read up to 56-58%--but so be it. Compare that with ten years, or even five years ago.

And let’s not forget how all the life and death uprisings in the Middle East have affected the change in public opinion; even within a homegrown struggle like WI. There is an interconnectedness we shouldn’t ignore.

This is not the time for complacency—or a lull in our own activity or analysis. “Afghanistan –the anti-war movement—been there,” zzzzz. In another thread, which has generated a lot of discussion, <b>Preparing Revolution Strategically: Identifying potential friends and die-hard enemies</b>, there are lots of questions as to who can be united with in struggle, yada yada. Just because an outright revolutionary outlook, line or summation does not have hegemony at this time, even among very progressive forces, is not the point.

This is a pivotal battle in the scheme of things and on a lot of levels, and one that is heating up in favor of the more revolutionary forces and world’s people. So yes, I agree, “we should [<i>actively&gt;</i>] participate in the mobilization of global public opinion.” And in the course of this important battle, affect our own more revolutionary vision. For starters…revolutionary defeatism. Besides “Yankee go home!” being part of our internationalist duties, this is an opportunity, not to simply resuscitate the anti-war movement, but has the potential for a whole lot more.

On whatever level we can oppose WAR....then that is the level you have to engage with the class. That we no longer have a WAR minister but a DEFENCE MINISTER or secretary tells us that making war popular is beyond the capabilities of finance capital. A 100 Murdoch's or Goebbels can't paint a pretty picture of it. Can't convince us that oil or raw materials, opium and cocaine, plunder global hegemony is at the heart of the matter. Too many people own camera phones. Too many can find their way into locked computers. The safety of our youth is paramount, too often choice of a job in the military, is no choice at all. The use of 'private' contractors long a cost saving exercise , both financial and political must be exposed. Foreign mercenaries are a new wine in old bottles, an old gag. Expendable as a drone. We must take OBAMAS new found discomfort to a new level...humiliate the democrats at every turn. War is not a respectable or worthwhile enterprise. It's there on a plate....over half of the people are against the war.

I wonder, wonder, wonder what is fuelling this opposition. We need to find out...but lets rejoice at peoples good sense, for a moment, too.

Just wanted to say, this is piece is a good example of coherent, anti-imperialist analysis that doesn't peddle illusions about the regimes of imperialised countries (overstating the progressive aspects of the Iranian and Lybian regimes, for example, and ignoring all the horrible stuff they do). We absolutely have to oppose and resist imperialist intervention. But we don't have to lie to do it.

Miles,I like your spirit..

but the way I see it the american people will not come out in any serious numbers to protest the war in Afghanistan,even less so now with the whole Obama phenomena of co-opting the movement..progressives,liberals,people of color with lies,promises,now fake withdrawls.

The neo-libs know full well that just with a shred of plausibility and perception of withdrawl,it is enough to placate,deflect any significant mass public protest..

Now,if the war were to expand to a regional war involving Pakistan,Iran or both or with any combination of other regional countries going up against the US empire..
I could definitely see a massive response by the american people against the war in the forms of huge mass protest and demonstrations similar to the anti-Vietnam protests of past decades....
But even though as we have seen before as in the bulidup to the Iraq invasion,the ruling class doesn't really give a damn about domestic or for that matter international protest..they will disregard protest and proceed forward with carrying out their imperialist goals.

(We need to point out this important aspect to the american people as well..)

There is one caviat to wide public anti-war support which the ruling class is very aware of,always have up there sleeves to derail,curtail,deflect mass public protest.That is the application of "False Flag" operations such as 911,gulf of Tonkin,Operation Northwoods,Pearl Harbor..etc etc etc..

These techniques are very powerful because they serve to rally american support "around the flag" so to speak..and public protest can become quickly transformed into patriotic support for the american "Homeland"..

Failing to point these things out to the american people in any significant way,not politically attacking this specific form of ruling class treachery and deceit,has been one of many glaring weaknesses where the Left and Communists have failed miserably.

It's a shame,the radical Right wing has not shied away from such criticism,and because of their efforts much doubt and suspicion of ruling class treachery has been propagated to a very significant public extent,garnering agreement to their analysis from millions of americans.It's just too bad that support will more than likely be converted into support for fascism.

Communists and the Left have been extremely stupid and proud in there negligence on these matters...for the most part the Left has been AWOL on educating the american public on HOW the ruling class really operates in the real world.

The american people don't want to hear endless pie-in-the sky utopian rhetoric,popish sermonizing by Communists about the ideological wonders and promises awaiting the workers when the "sweet hereafter" of Communism arrives..
The american people want to hear "real shit"..not dreamy eyed bullshit..

Talk about lack of imagination and creativity by stodgy conservative dogmatic Communists who feel somehow they are "above" or too "pure" to explore and then educate the american public about the very real existence of what has been popularly called "Conspiracy Theories".. and yes,in that category I also include 911 as a ruling class plan to gain an overwhelming mandate from the american people to invade Iraq in what has often been called "A New Pearl harbor"..

If Communists are truly serious about revolution they need to get of their pedestals and start communicating with the american people in a popular and wide fashion..

Nothing should be considered as taboo or out of bounds for Communists..NOTHING!
we should use everything we can to fight..wars have been fought with sticks and stones,bicycles and spears..we should be willing to do the same in an ideological sense..

Communist are just deceiving themselves and everyone else if all they want to do is endlessly talk to eachother in some hermetic echo chamber..that ain't revolution..that's just plain bullshit..

There ain't going to be any revolution if Communists don't change and learn how to adapt creatively and open minded..

Pride and arrogance mixed with elitism and racism is a deadly poison which could surely kill Communist revolution..

It's Adapt or Die...

Chicano....it's true to say that the working class can think for themselves. Largely but not entirely, without our intervention, a majority now view the war in a dim light.....How best to reinforce that view? DEEPEN IT? So we don't have to paint the same patch of damp wall again, year in year out. We can wear out shoe leather demonstrating, all well and good! What happens afterwards, that's important. We should be putting the boot in, yes as you say, the tide is turning. We can look to ways to acquaint ourselves with peoples anxieties be brutally honest a single DRONE could staff a cancer respite home for a year( i don't have the figures here) but you get the picture. A new school....a university course, a research programme for malaria, homes....the need, the priorities are subjective hence endless. Ask the class what are your priorities? A basic question....can we say they are our priorities? Importantly can we shed light on OBAMA......are his priorities THEIRS? If not why not ! We may have a shrewd idea....the class can discuss with us about his motives...ask ourselves who benefits?.

Shabby false PATRIOTISM...flag waiving wont butter any parsnips. Won't bring us a single new friend in the world.. Warmongers are feared....but true to say they are also despised for what they are. It is always the same(sameOsameO) it can only end one way....I get a sense of Americans clinging to the skids of helicopters as they desert the capital, as in Saigon, the finance capitalists have no country no loyalty. Hence no patriotism.....it's an empty vessel...as devoid of meaning as is their desire to rid the world of tyrants. A sick joke!!


That warmed the cockles of my heart, CHICANO, people are the same the world over....thank god!!

"The american people don’t want to hear endless pie-in-the sky utopian rhetoric,popish sermonizing by Communists about the ideological wonders and promises awaiting the workers when the “sweet hereafter” of Communism arrives..
The american people want to hear “real shit”..not dreamy eyed bullshit.."


That warmed the cockles of my heart, CHICANO, people are the same the world over….thank god!!

What I focused on in Obama's speech regarding Afghanistan was the ideological component. While we may call those references to democracy, the American Way, united American family, etc., bourgeios democratic rhetoric, this is what mainstream America (whether you classify them as left, right, or center) is fed by.

Communists cannot underestimate the paralysing power of the events of 9/11 in terms of neutralizing meaningful opposition as well as rallying defenders of the empire. Add to this the most incredible trunaround since the Vietnam War in making any critique of the imperial armed forces completely beyond the pale and we find ourselves in a very reactionary America that actually cuts across class, race, etc., in its ability to stymie protest.Add to this Obama's election as the first Black president and the ideological shackles tighten. Add as well the bottoming out of the economy and we have the vast majority of people clinging to the ideology of America as (perhaps) a last lifeline.

A vital part of the human psyche is that when one is confronted with mortality they typically embrace their meaning-making paradigm all the tighter. Conversely, when one's meaning-making system is destabilized folks tend to feel quite mortal. In the case of 9/11 and the American psyche both mortality was made salient and meaning-making symbols were destroyed. Regardless of whether it was an inside or an outside job these reactions and responses occurred nonetheless. This is why we've had over 10 years of tepid protests against the American Imperium; or, if not tepid, then very small and narrowly targeted.

When CFuturenet calls for a new imagination, this is what we are up against -- something deep in the unconscious psyche of the majority of the American populace. The bright side is that this is also indicative of the movement towards "not being able to live in the same way" that conditions the emergence of a revolutionary situation. We revolutionaries are tasked with the creation of a new meaning-making system that must undergird all of our agitation and propaganda. A key partof this is sharpening our ability to reveal the deeper meaning of human enslavement in things like elections, wars, economic bailouts, etc.

It hardly takes communists or a communist analysis to provide material betterment to society. It takes nothing less than a communist imagination to create an entire new vision of social reality. Rather than Marx, Lenin, and Mao, perhaps we would have more creative stimulaiton if we all read (or re-read) those 50 sci-fi novels offered to Kasama readers last year.

"Communists cannot underestimate the paralysing power of the events of 9/11 in terms of neutralizing meaningful opposition as well as rallying defenders of the empire."

I'd have to disagree there. No other war in US history so rapidly developed widespread antiwar protests as did the Iraq war, starting from the fall of 2002. By the time Iraq was invaded in March 2003 the scale of antiwar protests had already reached a level that was only attained in the 1960s after large-scale fighting had been ongoing in Vietnam for some time. I can't see any place where 911 did anything very much to inhibit this.

What has been different in the last 8 years from the Vietnam era is simply that in the 1960s many people were firmly confident that the potential existed for building a new independent party. This tended to run off in multiple directions with the Socialist Workers Party, Spartacist League, Workers League, Revolutionary Communist Party, Progressive Labor Party and multiple other derivations all at each others throats (whether rightly or wrongly may be left aside for now). But there was a broad assumption that some new party could be created.

That assumption fell apart in the public mind with the collapse of the USSR in 1989-91. Whether you regard the USSR in its later decades as a "bureaucratically degenerated workers' state" or "state capitalism" or something else is also beside the point. The ability of Joe Q. Public to imagine alternatives to the Democrats &amp; Republicans had long since become bound to a framework in which the USSR existed, and the end of the latter did mean the temporary end of any conception of independent politics.

But except for that, I'd have to say that no previous war in US history has more rapidly developed widespread opposition to it than did the invasion of Iraq in 2003. If 911 really was a false flag operation, then it was the most ineffectual such operation in world history. The wars have been grinding on not because any notable part of the public is really all that worked up about fears of Al Qaeda, but simply because the main antiwar sentiment has been repeatedly expressed in getting out the vote for the Democrats.

Even the more paranoid sectors of the Right-wing have been more visibly worked up about Obama's birth certificate than about 911. Right-wing populism has been all gung-ho on demanding tax cuts, but stuff about Arab terrorism has clearly been shifted to the side. The main arguments made in support of Obama by The Nation and similar types have been lesser-evil arguments, not really arguments which invoke 911. Trying to recast this as if it were a consequence of the public being paralyzed in the aftermath of 911 is a severe distortion, in my opinion.

How Obama wil implement a Pakistan strategy in eastern Afghanistan by relying on drones and Special Forces: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/obama-wont-use-troops-to-save-afghan-hellhole-drones-maybe/

Patrick, you cannot explain the last 8 years by referring to the fact that a third party alternative is beyond most folks conception. Most mainstream Americans are hardly looking for this kind of alternative -- most are quite firmly in the position of racing from one side of the ship of state (Republican) to the other (Democrats); and this is the case whether they vote or not -- this is the ideological mindset and the power of bourgeois ideology.

Nor can you use the initial years of protests to make your case. Frankly, those were the years when the naivete of previous antiwar protests still had residual power. Those protests led effectively to demoralization when ruling classes across the globe barely flinched andn instead dug into the war on terror even more firmly, leading to barely a ripple when Obama campaigned on Afghanistan being the right war. The last 8 years speak volumes about the condition of the psycho-ideological state of the American populace.

Finally, it is not the overt "being worked up" that is the sign we should be looking to; again, the ideology of Americanism, America's central place in the events of the world, America as a force for what is good, true, and beautiful was on display in Obama's speech and that is what underlies all the rhetoric the bourgeoisie is using (and will use decidedly in the upcoming election year) that we have to deeply investigate and undermine.

Want to start by stating that any comments from these quarters are not some diatribe against Chicanofuture. While we have a different view of the current situation, he/she is not my enemy, but ultimately, and hopefully a comrade-in-arms.

And I am not able to further voice my opinion in some fancy or oh-so-politically correct way, quoting volumes of Marx, Lenin or Mao. <i> My bad. </i>

Put simply, is the glass half empty or half full?

Here’s how I see it. I think the objective situation, and even many of the worldwide subjective forces, have changed since 9/11. Days and weeks <i> before </i> the U.S. invasion and war against Iraq (talk about illusions, the U.S. imperialists originally billing this as “Operation Iraqi Freedom”), and not that long after 9/11, millions around the world, including in major cities in the U.S.; over a million anti-war demonstrators in London, 30,000 marching and rallying in Mexico City, etc. -- took to the streets—“Hands off of Iraq,” “NO to Yanqui and British imperialism.” The invasion and war officially started in March 2003, and by May of that year, Bush was claiming “Mission Accomplished.” (<i> His bad.</i> )

Worldwide, for all of us marching through various streets, we thought we could prevent the U.S. invasion and war, but like today in many respects, we were ignored. The momentum and birth of that newer anti-war and anti-imperialist movement was sapped and co-opted. Many people were demoralized, or felt impotent, and some forces while trying to keep the movement alive, were operating in the old ways.

But I have to ask, isn’t the political landscape changing?

Even if the vast majority of people in the U.S. are not at the level of “consciousness” we talk endlessly about, are there not apparent grave cracks and fissures within the imperialist rulers and the way they rule? There has never been a revolution that involves everyone, certainly not at the same level of consciousness. But is there any truth to Mao saying, “A single spark can start a prairie fire”?

IMO, not only do the imperialists have to contend with a global economic crisis, they also have to contend and try and maneuver with the millions who have arisen globally, in particular in the Middle East and North Africa. Those uprisings have put a whole other face on their tactics and strategy—making for new contradictions and not the same ones coming off of the emotional rawness of 9/11. (Even racial profiling, which obviously still exists, has had to undergo some "cosmetic" changes, coming off of the rebellions in the M.E.)

And without a more thoroughgoing analysis of the objective situation—and with some flexibility within that, we are going to be lagging, yet again. Far be it from me to quote Bob Avakian, but in his 1980s pamphlet, “Coming from Behind” he speaks about the conscious revolutionary forces lagging behind the “masses” and I think that is more the situation at this point, especially when it concerns the disenchantment of millions with the imperialists’ wars and occupations.

There are of course variances in the growing anti-imperialist war sentiment. Hell there are even big differences in how the traditional Left, or more revolutionary forces, view it all. But the fact remains, things are changing, and while the imperialists will continue to jump through various hoops to save their system, and the differences (politically and ideologically) among the people will remain, is this not a more favorable moment to further “prepare minds and organize forces”?

Immediately after Obama’s schpeel, I got a call from a very progressive friend, who has been a big Obama supporter all along—mainly because he is African American and so is she. She was outraged about the piddly withdrawal from Afghanistan, and was writing Obama to tell him so. “What else can we do?”

In the U.S. we are not in a revolutionary situation…far from it, but some of the chasms are narrowing and unless we are on top of that, we’re gonna miss a real opportunity. And how do any of us learn, and be “creative”?—it is through actual struggle. It is much easier to sum up the national psyche, or some condescending savior pointing out how the people are oppressed (something that the oppressed, and certainly Chicanofuture knows this, don’t need to hear). It is much more difficult, especially in times of great lulls, to actually take things to a higher level, and capture a revolutionary imagination and spirit that may exist subterraneously amongst a broader base.

To repeat an experience—boring—in 1964 I took part in an anti-Vietnam war “demonstration” that consisted of 10 people. Ten people. Four years later was marching alongside over half a million in New York, all nationalities, contingents of active duty soldiers and Vietnam vets, various political persuasions, et al.

We can bemoan the illusions of Obama’s presidency all we want. We can talk about how it is our duty to make revolution in the U.S. and in the “belly of the beast” even more so. We can sit around analyzing what we think is the overwhelming national psyche, based on our own empirical and individual “feelings”…and we can leave it up to the imperialists to sum it all up for us, as they scramble to put a new face on their power grabs, and attempts at maintaining their system.

Or we can be listening to and working with the broader masses, most especially the more advanced, as they seek answers to their own dilemmas and put things in a more revolutionary and broader context. And we certainly can be part of the life and death struggle for global public opinion—which is now taking place in a very real way against imperialist war.

Mike didn’t say…now is the time to seize power, but what he did say, and he’s right, is—“we should participate in the mobilization of global public opinion.”

“In October 2001, the United States of America and Great Britain invaded the country of Afghanistan. The invasion was in response to the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.” (from Ohio History Central.)

A minor example of how people and things (objectively and subjectively) change: On that very day in October, I happened to be having comida at my boyfriend family’s very humble abode. I burst into tears of rage and was screaming at la televisión. My boyfriend’s mother asked, “Why are you so upset? What about all los mexicanos who don’t even have a tortilla to eat?” And we got into it. Ten years’ later, she has changed her tune, especially after the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, etc., and having experienced first hand the mini-police state in México, where 37,000 people! (mostly innocent bystanders) have been killed since 2005—all those deaths related in no small way to the U.S. imperialists. And she now looks at the world with more of an internationalist perspective.

According to the “polls” anti-(imperialist) war sentiment has now been upped to between 56-64% in the U.S. alone…so where are we gonna stand in all that? Are we gonna continue to complain and criticize, and wait for everyone to be on board to make revolution? What does the revolutionary process even look like, seeing as there is obviously a wide array of interpretations on even that. Talk about lagging….

"Frankly, those were the years when the naivete of previous antiwar protests still had residual power."

Yes, I'd agree with that. My point is simply that this is very different from saying that something about 911 was holding people back. Quite the opposite. Many people had been raised on diluted prettified images of what was and was not achieved in the 1960s and, far from being silenced by 911, they approached the drive for war with a naive idealized view of the Hippy Days. That is a problem, but is a very different problem from saying that 911 somehow intimidated antiwar activism. It did not.

RW Harvey..
I agree with you comrade..IMAGINATION is a truly powerful weapon we Communists must need to use in the struggle..

Yes,and I also agree with you that Art in many instances serves as the proverbial "canary in the coal mine"..sort of as an "early warning system" for fascism and tyranny,especially science fiction in books and movies give us the glimpse of a possible future..just look at the drones the military is using and plans to increase exponentially both internationally and domestically,look at helicopters flying above our big metropolitan centers,(please no "black helicopter" jokes..),
electronic spying, and a whole host of other electronic and computer surveillance systems..science fiction has always had dark visions of the usage of such hellish devices for tyrannical purposes..

so I agree with you comrade RW Harvey.. we do need to look and take heed at what the artists are saying....


In my frequent speculations, I often wonder how far the "evil empire" would be willing to go in pursuit of it's goal of global and regional domination of the middle east,the central asian region with their incredible energy rich resources..

Would the USA be willing to risk all an out nuclear war in a direct confrontation with Russia or China ( the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) or both with potential wild cards Pakistan,Iran hidden in the deck?

Iranian writer,Hamid Golpira, had this to say on the topic:

<i> “According to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s theory, control of the Eurasian landmass is the key to global domination and control of Central Asia is the key to control of the Eurasian landmass....Russia and China have been paying attention to Brzezinski’s theory, since they formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in 2001, ostensibly to curb extremism in the region and enhance border security, but most probably with the real objective of counterbalancing the activities of the United States and NATO in Central Asia.”</i>

Reinforcing this attitude we can see China clearly takes the USA's design for global domination deadly serious.China’s Academy of Military Science characterizes US geopolitical aims as Washington’s <i> “overbearing strategy of encirclement and suffocation.”</i>

"Gangster logic" ..is an excellent characterization of the US empires strategic military aggressive moves.

Unfortunately for humanity,gangsters and criminals in general are not exactly known for their progressive logic and rationality.

Given their current geo-politico-military trajectory the US empire is currently following,there is a distinct possibility,that a deadly configuration of powers and events may one day combine like volatile ingredients in a bomb to explode into WWIII...

Applying this same "Gangster logic"-bringing it back home here to the USA-one is also led to conjecture whether the ruling class,facing the prospect of crushing defeat by revolution,facing the possibility of class annihilation,would also be willing to "nuke" "infect" "poison" an uncontrollable american population in revolt??

Is the ruling class so evil,vile and corrupt that they would actually be willing to take everyone "down" with them in nuclear suicide if they cannot rule and control,be in power?


My personal outlook based on pure speculation-

I consider myself more positive then negative as far as the overall survival and advancement of the human race in time,but in my gut I have the ominous feeling that for the current epoch of human history what we all may be fighting for one day is not the standard "normal" version of Communist revolution,but rather one that will take on the appearance of a "post apocalyptic" survivalist Communism.

I hope I'm wrong.But despite my ever-youthful idealism and optimism I'm not so sure Communist Revolution USA is in the cards.

Barring some type of communist "miracle"taking place in the near future,(me wishfully thinking here-a possibility,based on history,we have seen events and society change radically quantitatively qualitatively,astonishingly fast).But IMHO without some type of revolutionary "hail mary " pass occurring ( my belief ...we are in the last half of third quarter)in the last few minutes of the fourth quarter,the probabilities of Communist revolution are greatly diminished.

...Unfortunately,at this time, the current Communist movement has neither good quarterbacks nor many good teams.
So basically our existing ragtag groups of die hard communists have to struggle and sacrifice that much harder to make up for lost ground for the many serious errors committed by past communist groups and movements..

The future at this time does not look very promising for Communists,(and I am not in any way suggesting we just "give up and say fuck it),rather what I am just pointing out is the immensity of the objective obstacles we are faced with and which we must one way or another try to deal with..

it's easy to paint an pretty picture of things..it is human nature to prefer and accept such optimistic projections of future scenarios..

But,I feel we should be more like good doctors who sometimes have to tell you the hard cold truth about your health..not and easy job,but one that someone has to do..

From my viewpoint,a plausible scenario could occur,in which a majority of white americans will support some variant of "american style fascism",in order to continue "white skin privilege"...social,economic,political hegemony with majority white support,in conjunction with the strategy of a suborning co-optation of relatively class privileged (Malcolm X called them "House Niggers") groups of minority class overseers,guardians,loyalist flunkies of the dominant white capitalist power structure.

Such minority guardians of the capitalist system will have the role of future jailers,gate keepers in a vast prison complex of a fixed permanent "Underclass" in a "citadel fortress america" ..american "caste system".

I also envision the possibility of significant numbers of brown and black people at some point attempting to wage some type of national struggle- low intensity-high intensity warfare- in their attempt to achieve self-determination..resist fascism/racism.Looking at the current trajectory of racism/xenophobia escalating throughout american society and governments it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to envision millions of minority people turning to Nationalism as a form of self-defense against unbearable overwhelming draconian neo-fascistic racism-xenophobia.


Marx,Lenin,Stalin,Mao always taught us about Dialectical and historical materialism:

Development is a process whereby insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes lead to fundamental, qualitative changes. Qualitative changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, as leaps from one state to another. A simple example from the physical world is the heating of water: a one degree increase in temperature is a quantitative change, but between water of 100 degrees and steam of 100 degrees (the effect latent heat) there is a qualitative change.

"Merely quantitative differences, beyond a certain point, pass into qualitative changes." --Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1.

<i>Lesson ...we Communists must generate incredible amounts of BTU's.."turn up the heat" ... reach the "boiling point" as soon as possible..</i>

"the ideology of Americanism, America’s central place in the events of the world, America as a force for what is good, true, and beautiful"

All of that was around long before 911 and exists independently of it. There is no evidence of 911 having done anything to strengthen such influences. Quite the contrary.

Chicanofuture said…

<blockquote>”Yes,and I also agree with you that Art in many instances serves as the proverbial “canary in the coal mine”..sort of as an “early warning system” for fascism and tyranny,especially science fiction in books and movies give us the glimpse of a possible future….”

“…so I agree with you comrade RW Harvey.. we do need to look and take heed at what the artists are saying….”</blockquote>

I apologize if I am strayiing away from the very important subject of imperialist war, but since Chicanofuture brought it up…want to address the role of artists/filmmakers/writers/musicians and more specifically their art as part of the potpourri in combating both imperialist war and mayhem. Plus:and maybe more generally, what kind of role that art can play in changing public opinion to a more radical or revolutionary one.

ChicanoF. talks about “Art” as a “sort of early warning system for fascism and tyranny,” etc. But I think that is a very limited view of the power of art, and the role of progressive and revolutionary artists. Sure, Margaret Atwood’s, “Handmaid’s Tale” had a huge impact in revealing just what that fascist, tyrannical, and evangelical society could look like if the religious Right got state power. Atwood made an important contribution.

Not to take this out of historical context (something we should keep in mind before somehow automatically “trashing” “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”)—but there is a new (and fascinating) book out about Harriet Beecher Stowe, by historian David S. Reynolds—“Mightier than the Sword: ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ and the Battle for America.” It makes the case that H.B. Stowe’s novel played a dramatic role in persuading public opinion against slavery, (even with its new window-dressings at the time) and was a powerful aid to the abolitionists.

In other words, art doesn’t just serve as some “canary in the coal mine,” or “early warning system for fascism and tyranny.” Art, just like the many humans that make it, is not some monolith. And art can be loaded with contradictions, just as the artists themselves can be.

Art is my “comfort zone,” and to flatter myself, think of myself as a revolutionary-minded artist. And I know many artists that feel the same way. But what many of the revolutionary or radical artists attempt to do, is to portray at least a kernel of the universal, to connect with people on a more visceral level, and hopefully have an impact within the larger picture—and we want to make a contribution to the revolutionary struggle.

Artists can articulate things, sometimes in a single blow, and give voice to many who might not yet have the confidence themselves to be politically articulate. Art, music, literature can be another dynamic form of articulation.

In my 20+ year´s experience, very often I’ve found myself in a quandary. It used to be that I would jump right into the fray, more a participant than an observer. But as I developed (hopefully) as an artist, I found myself to be more of an observer, a listener, trying to capture the experience and longings of the people, which is often times controversial, and giving that back to them, in something they could connect with. And often times, my art, as well as that of a lot of artists I know, doesn’t just paint a picture of the objective situation or obvious reality, or direct experience of our subjects, but also within that we can attempt to portray something resembling seeds of the future.

All the while, it is a struggle not to fall prey to the poster and slogan style (which style doesn´t just manifest itself in art alone)—and that seems to me to require one to really be in touch as much as possible with the people, on a lot of levels. Empathy is an important ingredient, as well as scratching the surface of the obvious, in terms of people’s veiled aspirations, hopes and dreams, and not simply buying into what the bourgeoisie tells you are people’s hopes and dreams or ideas.

And we shouldn’t be afraid, in whatever form our revolutionary work takes, to introduce the internationalism and camaraderie that does exist, and is growing, between peoples.

The first painting I sold to one Mexican man who became a very close friend via art (and who now has 11 of my paintings in his “collection”), was of “Cabrini Green.” Needless to say, he knew nothing about Cabrini Green, nor much about the overwhelming oppression of Black people in the U.S. But there was something he recognized in that painting and could identify with. As a result, he ended up reading tons about Cabrini Green and national oppression in the U.S. He organized (taking the initiative as he is not an “organizer”) a gathering in his casa of over 50 people, with this painting as the centerpiece, for a discussion about racism in the U.S., and what were some similarities in Mexico and Central America? (There was a lot of discussion about how immigrants from Central America were being treated by the Mexican government, and who was behind the whole thing. And there was also discussion about the racism that exists in Mexico, against the indigenous people.) I thought that was pretty exciting.

In 2007, I organized an exhibition titled—“No más Guerra, racismo ni pobreza” displaying around 25 paintings I had done on the subject. Over 300 people, mostly locals, attended the opening, with a very lively presentation by a radical sociologist/anthropologist about imperialist war, music by revolutionary-minded jazz musicians (including an original piece called Malik for Malcolm X) and debate, sometimes heated, ensued. One of the paintings displayed was called “Iraq-Vietnam. What´s wrong with this picture?” which I painted at the beginning of the Iraq war. There wasn´t any dispute about the war itself, or the U.S.´filthy hands in it all…but the controversy was more over, how do we end these imperialist wars once and for all.

Doom and gloom always seems to reside alongside a more far-sighted or positive visionary outlook. And while both are real, and without being some voluntarist, how do we make use of the contradictory nature of the world, its inhabitants, and events to the people´s advantage?

US General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, 1997-2000, espouses the Powell Doctrine, of swift escalation to decisive force, as opposed to `extended campaigns that could leave democratic governments being vulnerable to their own public opinion'. That is, US doctrine aims to prevent the public having any say over the actions of NATO's `democratic' governments.

Clark wrote in the 2001 edition, "In the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan ..." (p. 130.) This revealing comment does not appear in the 2002 reprint edition.

OKOKOK! We all know only too well what they are about.Barring another evil genie being summoned from the lamp....what you see(read)... is what you get!

HAHAHA!! We now have captured the plans for the counter revolution....What use can we make of it...CLARK ...POWELL TOO WERE ONLY TOO AWARE. Workers have no stomach for war...the more protracted the uneasier we become. The more questions are asked...This has consequences. Our rulers need at the very least our acquiescence...they need public opinion. Mikes simple statement bears repeating "we should participate in the mobilization of global public opinion.” Never give them a moments respite...after all the glass is more than half full or put another way, the tide has turned. It is apparent from Clark that the tide changed some time ago....and the rulers being more class conscious and better able....stole a march on us. Were we asleep?

Britain is an aircraft carrier....for imperialism....Europe must not become a base for conquest. Failed states must not be allowed to band together(E.U.) the better to regain lost colonies .We should take time to examine why exactly people on the planet have expressed opposition. What level they are at so we can better raise the level of debate and all can learn and go forward. Sovereignty starts at home...not some far away land.........people in other parts must press theirs and choose what is best for themselves.The idea that colonies benefit workers in metropolitan countries is tosh, How could Portugal with vast areas in Africa and Asia have a working class that was impoverished ? Whilst Sweden Norway Denmark workers carved out a better living. No workers benefit from imperialism . They are more likely(the survivors) to benefit from an outbreak of Bubonic Plague.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/B000C4SUNS/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

ABOVE LINK TO CLARKS' BOOK ON MODERN WAR......

"Expose the empire to oppose the empire. Oppose the empire to end the empire."

Of course we should do that. That means effectively explaining to people that we live in an imperialist country that operates according to certain general principles of motion. (Lenin's theory of imperialism has been treated dismissively by some on this site. But I think there are really only three choices: to see U.S. wars as noble causes (as the political class usually asks us to do); to see them "mistakes"---perhaps rooted in "flawed intelligence"; or to see them as expressions of the nature of the system.

The question is how to explain the nature of the system, and to show how wars serve the interests of the capitalist class in general (or at least are undertaken because those in power calculate that they will).

"The decision to continue this war is a cold decision of empire, it is a calculation based on imperialist politics of an establishment elite (not on popular politics)."

I agree. But this needs to be fleshed out. Why are there 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus the added NATO troops and mercenaries? We know it is not to destroy al-Qaeda, which is no longer there (and in its original configuration, small to begin with). Nor is it to prevent the Taliban from returning to power and allowing Afghanistan to become a base of terrorist operations against the U.S. The notion that the Pashtun-nationalist xenophobic Talibs---concerned with imposing Sharia law in their country, while offering hospitality to outsiders in accordance with the Pashtunwali code, while showing what Engels in 1857 called the Afghans' "indomitable hatred of rule, and their love of independence"---want to be involved in a global pan-Islamic movement to establish a global caliphate is ridiculous. They never asked bin Laden to set up shop in their country; he arrived months before they took power in Kabul in 1996. They treated him hospitably but there is no evidence that they knew of or approved al-Qaeda plans for the 9-11 attacks which occurred in the same year that Afghanistan received U.S. funding to successfully eradicate opium production and while negotiations between U.S. oil companies and the Taliban about pipeline construction continued. I saw reports that after the 1999 East Africa embassy bombings the Taliban curtailed bin Laden's movements and communications. There have been reports about antagonisms between at least some of the Taliban leadership and the Arab guests, and also offers by the Taliban after 9-11 to turn bin Laden over the the U.S. (which were rejected by Washington).
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

At least one Taliban leader has stated that after 9-11 Mullah Omar in the presence of many Taliban commanders demanded that bin Laden answer whether or not he was behind the 9-11 attacks and that bin Laden denied it. But subsequently Omar came to believe that his guest was, and wasn't happy. Why would the Taliban have endorsed an action likely to result in the invasion and occupation of their country?
http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/11/28/are-the-taliban-distancing-themselves-from-al-qaeda/

The Taliban has actually issued a statement that upon returning to power they will not allow any group to use their country for attacks upon other countries. So the idea that the U.S. must continue bombing and house-raiding etc. to "defend" the U.S. from "terrorist attacks" is weak on the face of it.

So why is there REALLY this "calculation based on imperialist politics"?

Control of Afghan markets seems to have nothing to do with this. Afghanistan has no resources to speak of and was virtually ignored the US State Department even as it cultivated alliances with the neighboring states of Pakistan and Iran. Indeed the U.S. basically conceded it to the Soviet sphere of influence.

Is it mainly the establishment of permanent bases to be used for leverage in geopolitical competition with China and Russia, and for use in future wars against Iran or other countries? Maybe, but the U.S. has bases elsewhere in the general region (Kuwait, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan). Is it worth it to the U.S. ruling class (of which as Lenin put it the cabinet is the "executive committee") to continue the war to maintain the bases?

Is it based on some ideological commitment within the US ruling class to the transformation of Afghan society, getting rid of the veil etc.? I doubt this, even though the neocons always like to pretend that the wars they promote are humanitarian and "liberal" in intent. Notice how, when it became apparent that the fall of the Taliban had almost no impact on the tradition of burqa-wearing (hence, it could no longer be BLAMED on the Taliban any more than on the warlords the U.S. is now in bed with) it ceased to be an issue...

Is it because, whatever might be involved in Afghanistan, retreat now would humiliate the U.S. ruling class in ways that would damage various other strategic goals aside from pacifying a poor country under U.S. hegemony (and strengthen the Shanghai Cooperation Organization)?

Is it because the U.S. elite want to build a natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea to western countries and allies that bypasses Russian territory as well as Iran and proceeds through Pakistan and India to an Indian Ocean port? (That would seen the big prize of the Afghan War... but it requires control over the Helmand Valley, where the "surge" started in 2009 [Operation Khanjar] and has stymied.)

Again, my point is just that when we say "this is a cold decision of empire" we should have some answer when people ask, "What's in it for the imperialists? Why are they increasing the deficit, and watching public opinion turn against the war (undermining their position) in order to keep fighting an enemy which seems to strengthen every year while Afghan public opinion turns decisively against the foreign forces? What sense does this make to the imperialists?"

How do we explain this---concretely---in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory?

The problem with the idea that people are turning against the war, while seemingly true in polls and even among some politicians, is that turning against the war does not necessarily equate with turning against the empire. We can read Lenin, et al., until we are blue (red?) in the face and unless we grasp what it takes to alter consciousness -- amongst the broad masses, not only amongst the advanced -- we will never alter the relations amongst people or the relations between people and the ecosphere.

Seizing power is the easiest part of the calculus towards revolutionary transformation of society -- the easiest. And if our vision is limited to this or, worse, if our vision sees the seizure of power as the keystone from which the trasformation of relations automatically flows, then we will not prevent ourselves from becoming a new ruling elite, the new boss/same as the old boss (as the song goes). In fact, if we fail to grok the role of consciousness and the vital importance of establishing a system that provides meaning in the face of life, death, and every aspect of existence in between, then we fail; it is that simple.

When I speak of imagination I am speaking first and foremost of revolutionary communists creating a new myth that can galvanize people and sustainn them in participating consciously in the transformation of society and ultimately in the entire planet.

The crucial part of people not living in the same way is that their myths that give them meaning are rupturing; the crucial part of the ruling classes not being able to rule in the same way is that their ability to sustain the myths that shackle people to the system are also rupturing and void of content. The revolutionary forces can enter this rupture and seize power simply by virtue of offering the masses of people an end to the instability that such a situation creates: a viable plan to make society run again would be the key ingredient. But to transform the world with a communist vision stability and food and water and work will hardly be enough. Or, it will be enough to create a society of drones hardly different from what we've overthrown.

Will revolutionary communism be able to give people a sense of their place in the cosmos, in all the changingness that that myth wil undergo over the centuries? If we cannot envision a myth of communist society now, then we will be unable to chart the course to that society.

Gary re: Imperialism

"<i>How do we explain this—concretely—in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory?</i>

Gary,I believe that just explaining Imperialism to the american people from some type of moral imperative is not enough.

We have to tie in Imperialism,foreign wars,invasions,police actions etc etc.. into a broader more comprehensive dialectical framework..

We must advocate ruthless criticism,resistance and opposition to Imperialist wars and foreign intervention,at the same time explaining the connections of how Imperialism concretely impacts american lives here at home:divides them through racism,xenophobia,erodes democratic freedoms,liberties,justice,quality of life,escalates corruption,diminishes economic well being.

We need to educate them of the role of the criminal global capitalist corporate bandits,mass unemployment,outsourcing jobs,infrastructure,workers rights,criminal banks/wall streeet bailouts stimulus and other such nefarious ruling class economic prescriptions..etc etc...

Just putting forward a critique of anti-imperialism is not enough...it's an incomplete narrative..

Our task should be to educate the american people as to how <i>they too</i> are being exploited,oppressed,repressed.."Screwed over.. ripped-off " by the same group of ruling class corporate criminals,their military and governments,who are waging unjust Imperialist wars against other workers around the world.. we must construct a bond of workers solidarity,an iron link of unity between the american people and the people of the third world..once this is connection is objectively established ..basically,it's all but over for the ruling class.They better run for the hills!

So why are Americans turning against the war? Anybody got the faintest idea? Are they bored with the spectacle uneasy about the cost? A realization that cutting off the patients arm after applying the 'band aid' is all to often the consequence of intervention. We need a better dialogue than reading just opinion polls. When many of us are having to watch every penny are folk scrutinizing the tab. About time. War is expensive in human costs but also material. The US has no illusions about the limits of their power or potential for mischief. At one time or the other they have been roundly defeated on every continent in one arena or the other. They need allies.....and when they don't ....they discard.

We were promised a PEACE DIVIDEND on the collapse of the BERLIN WALL......did you get yours? Still waiting for mine.

Instead a new confidence, nay arrogance swept in. Large imperialists started strutting on the world stage......'mini me' replicants..join with Dr Evil. At present the EU and NATO have a front seat. America is trying to get EU to shoulder the burden of costs. It is pointing to the inadequate budgets of UK and others for 'defence'. This puts another question mark over NATO, is it helpful to our defence? Should a north Atlantic defence pact stretch to Asia and Africa. What benefits to workers? A seat at the table of the imperial club? We have seen all too often power blocs unleashing war dragged by the very treaty obligations that spoke of safety in numbers. We should rid ourselves of this encumberance to liberty, our own and others..Time after time workers of Britain have shown their dislike of military spending...with good reason. The morality or necessity is found wanting in any arguments, to the contrary,.it is an argument that is tired. WMD...I guarantee only a few fools were taken in....and they rapidly became acquainted with the truth. DURHH....so all the QUALITY newspaper hacks ,scribblers TV political pundits et al....were bloody wrong. An old train driver from Acton was right. I have asked myself that question many times! WHY? I quickly discounted a superior intellect...at least Wifey did....or special inside knowledge. It's true that if one goes through life opposing anything the ruling class says or does you will be right 99%. It's more than that....over the years I have internalized their lies and trickery.I have read too. Biographies....military...I have listened to people...old soldiers and some not so old sad to say. In short then experience has been my tutor. and gave me a thirst to delve deeper. I went to peace meetings, communist papers became acceptable reading material, with a critical eye. Attended study groups, listened mostly but also had my say.

If anyone still believes they have some special font of knowledge that can be sprinkled over stupid workers....think again.