From: http://www.ft-ci.org/
Thursday, November 13, 2008
More unemployed workers, more poor people, and for a longer time
10 million unemployed in the United States
By Celeste Murillo
The figure that overshadowed the economic panorama these last few days was 6.5% unemployment in the United States. All analysts now predict a rapid increase that could reach 7% this year and around 9% in 2009. Unemployment and the fall in consumption are added to data that show the definitive entry of the US economy into a recessionary cycle.
The data that caused most pain were the October job losses (240,000) and the review by the US Department of Labor of the September job losses. That organization had anticipated the elimination of 159,000 jobs, but by the end of September the sum turned out to be 284,000 (almost double).
Thus far in 2008, 1,200,000 jobs have been eliminated, more than half of which disappeared in August, September and October. The branches most affected were industry (90,000 jobs lost in October, in an obvious setback during the last few months) and construction (49,000 jobs lost) which had been one of the big sources of work in the last few years (in connection with the real estate bubble). In only two years in the construction sector, 663,000 jobs were lost (see "The jobs that were lost"). This, without taking into account that in this sector a percentage of employment is illegal, where immigrants (a big part of the undocumented) tend not to be counted in statistics because of the informality of working conditions.
Less work and fewer rights
At this time, the share of working adults is at its lowest level in the last 15 years: 61.8%. Among adults, the rate of employment of males is the lowest since the Department of Labor began keeping statistics in 1948 (with the exception of 2 months during 1983).
The number of unemployed people climbed to a total of 10,100,000, the biggest since 1983. Among them, the groups with the most unemployment are the Latino community (8.8% are without jobs) and the African American community (11.1%), while unemployment among white workers is 5.9%. We should also note that women and young people in all groups suffer higher rates of unemployment. Only 32% of the unemployed gain access to unemployment insurance. Many of the newly unemployed fail to meet the requirements to enjoy that right: part-time workers and those who have not worked for the minimum period (which varies by state), remain outside. In the 2001 recession, 45% of the unemployed gained access to the insurance. In the 1950’s, the rate was greater than 50%.
Taking under-employment into account, the rate of people with problems finding work has increased to 11.8% (last year it was 8.4%). This category includes part-time workers – who have not found full-time jobs or whose working hours have been reduced – (6,700,0000) and those who are no longer seeking work (calculated at 484,000 in the most recent survey). 1,600,000 people who want to work, but did not go out to seek jobs during the four weeks before the census, would also belong in this group.
Another data point that makes the already bitter situation worse is the fact that 22% of the unemployed (2,300,000 or 1 out of every 5 unemployed) has failed to find work for 6 months or more; in the last 25 years, this level has never risen. It is estimated that 800,000 people have already been deprived of unemployment insurance, and in November and December, an additional 350,000 more could be (National Employment Law Project). The same center estimates that for the half of mortgages that are late or have foreclosure notices, the reason is that the owners have lost their jobs or their source of income.
The automotive sector, that serves as a thermometer for the US economy’s state of health, continues to show signs of having entered into recession. Last week, they had announced the fall in their sales (Chrysler, by 35%, Ford, by 30%, and General Motors, by 45%). Although Congress approved the $25 billion assistance package for the Big Three automakers, they said it is not sufficient and announced layoffs, suspensions and job cuts. General Motors’ stock has fallen to $3.36 per share, the lowest market price since 1946
The Big Three automakers announced job cuts and layoffs for the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 (see “Layoffs continue”): General Motors said it will cut 30% of its labor force; Ford also announced a 15% personnel reduction this year, plus a 10% additional reduction in February (bloomberg.com).
Inequality
In the last 30 years, the gap between rich and poor has grown enormously. Proof of this is the abysmal difference between what a CEO collects and what an average worker earns. If in the decade of the 1970's, a CEO collected 27 times the average wages of a worker, in 2007 this difference climbed to 275 times.
The bursting of the real estate bubble revealed how the astronomical increase in indebtedness of working families was what fueled the consumption of the last decade, while real wages remained virtually stagnant. This is now the situation of many impoverished groups facing debts they cannot pay (mortgages and credit cards).
There are more and more layoffs, affecting ever more people and more often. Businesses are also favored by the flexibility of contracts, since the part of the working class that is unionized (9% in the private sector) and can collectively negotiate better conditions at work is in the minority (although the union bureaucracy, clearly, is no guarantee). In this context, the AFL-CIO union bureaucracy has been a big collaborator in liquidating what workers had previously conquered and their rights, by dividing and weakening the ranks of labor.
—
The jobs that were lost in October:
Industry: 90,000 (the most affected sectors were metal part fabrication: 11,000, furniture, etc.: 10,000 and autoparts: 9,000).
Construction: 49,000. Since the peak of the construction industry (September, 2006) 663,000 jobs have been lost.
Services: 51,000.
Commerce: 38,000 (the sectors that lost most: automobile dealerships: 20,000, department stores: 18,000).
Financial services: 24,000. Since the peak this sector reached in December, 2006, a total of 200,000 jobs have been lost.
—
Layoffs are continuing
In October:
Pepsico 3,300
Goldman Sachs 3,260
Xerox 3,000
Time 3,000
These firms have already announced layoffs:
General Motors 5,000
Ford 2,200
Chrysler 18,500
American Express 7,000
Circuit City 7,300
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Notes, Bloomberg, The Wonk Room.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Obama faces the most serious challenge to US domination
From: http://www.ft-ci.org/
Thursday, November 13, 2008
US: Transition and Crisis
Obama is facing the most serious challenge to US authority
By Claudia Cinatti
One week after his election victory, Obama has begun to outline the key figures of his team, that will lead the transition in the little more than two months that remain before his taking office as President next January 20.
The names that have emerged are in tune with the strategy of lowering the expectations of "change" that his election caused and indicate that Obama will turn to the traditional establishment of imperialist policy to face up to the most serious challenge that has confronted the United States since the end of the Second World War.
Domestically, the country is going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. To the alarming figures that have been announced in the past week about the state of the economy was added Paulson's confession that the bailout package and buying "toxic assets" from banks has not really worked, and that it is necessary to change the strategy of government policy to revitalize the economy, which led to the nth fall of the Wall Street stock market. Internationally, Obama has still not found the solution to the two Bush-era wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and he will have to wrestle with the more general situation of instability in the Middle East, and, probably, with new conflicts that will arise in the meantime, of which the war between Russia and Georgia was only an early indicator.
In addition to this, there is the demand by France, China and other countries that a new international financial structure be established, as French President Sarkozy requested, a new "Bretton Woods" that would set up clear rules and permit more regulated economic functioning. In contrast with popular expectations by young people, workers, blacks and Latinos, who voted for Obama, and millions in the world that were hoping for "change," the imperialist bourgeoisie is hoping that the new face of US leadership will have a beneficial effect on its interests and that Obama's presidency can partially reverse the decline of US hegemony.
Towards another New Deal?
One of the big tests that Obama's administration will be subjected to will be the policy that it determines to face up to the profound recession that has already settled on the US. It should be enough to recall that the Big Three automakers, Chrysler, General Motors and Ford, the icons of US capitalism, are in serious problems, and that GM and Ford reported billion-dollar losses, $4.2 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively, in the last quarter.
Obama is avoiding acting like the new US President, hoping that Bush and Congress -- which is also resuming -- are the ones who will take some of the necessary measures. As part of this strategy, Obama will not attend the next meeting of the G-20, to take place on November 15.
In the November 7 press conference, the same day that the unemployment figures became known, Obama said he agreed with the need to implement a fiscal stimulus plan, to help reactivate the economy, extend unemployment insurance, that unemployed workers only receive for six months, reduce taxes on low-income households, and pass a government assistance package for the three automakers, which he repeated to Bush during the transition meeting they had on November 10. Up to now, Obama's economic policy, in addition to supporting Paulson's plan for bailing out the bankers, has been very moderate, and during the campaign he only promised some $60 billion, to be allocated between public works and social assistance.
The partisans of another New Deal consider that this policy is insufficient for facing the crisis. For instance, the Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, calculates that the stimulus package should be at least 4% of GDP, that is, some $600 billion. Last Monday, in his column in the daily New York Times, he advised Obama to show "audacity" in public spending. Comparing the current situation with that of the Great Depression, this economist concludes that although it is true that the New Deal failed to take the economy out of the Depression, this was owing to Roosevelt's excessive "prudence," and he advises Obama to "figure out how much help he thinks the economy needs, then add 50 percent," given that "It’s much better, in a depressed economy, to err on the side of too much stimulus than on the side of too little." Leaving aside the fact that Obama will become President with a monumental government debt, swollen by the bailout for the banks, which makes this "bold policy" difficult at least, one must say that Roosevelt did not lack "audacity" in government spending. This became clear when, faced with the failure of the New Deal, he turned towards war industry, with the enormous government investment that involved, which finally took the US economy out of the Depression, and, after the war, guaranteed decades of US dominance in the capitalist world. That is, the New Deal was the first step in a series of policies to protect the interests of the US imperialist bourgeoisie.
The big lesson that arises from the New Deal is that the political representatives of the bourgeoisie defend class interests that are opposed to those of workers and the oppressed minorities and that without touching the property of big capital and the enormous power of corporations (as Roosevelt failed to do with the property of the "60 families" that owned the US), sooner or later, capitalism will lead to new catastrophes.
Iraq, Afghanistan and foreign policy
Since his nomination as a presidential candidate, Obama has been surrounded by former Secretaries of State, like Brzezinski and M. Albright, analysts and military men from the "realist" group of the US imperialist foreign policy establishment. Their strategy is to repair the image of the United States in the world, an image seriously damaged by the unilateralism of the Bush years, and in that way get more cooperation from traditional allies and even from new actors, to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the least costly way possible and face the multiple challenges that the US will confront in the coming period.
In Iraq, on December 31 this year, the UN mandate that has covered the presence of imperialist troops expires, and tense negotiations are underway between the Iraqi government and the US over the terms of a possible agreement for extending the mandate. In addition, provincial elections, that are very important for the balance of forces among the different Shiite and Sunni factions, will be held in January.
The situation of NATO troops in Afghanistan has been seriously deteriorating since 2006. Unlike Iraq, where negotiations with Iran and the agreement with Sunni groups has permitted lowering the number of attacks against the occupation troops, in Afghanistan this year the number of attacks by the Taliban against NATO troops is the highest since 2001. The Taliban has recovered its ability to fight, as well as a big social base. President Karzai, a US puppet, is completely unpopular, and the conflict has spread to Pakistan.
Bush's policy was to pressure the Pakistani government that, after three months of fighting in which US troops participated, launched a brutal military attack in the border region of Bajaur to try to recover territory still under control of the Taliban and other tribal forces and prevent them from advancing on Peshawar. At the same time, it is attempting to find "reconcilable" groups among the Taliban and other hostile forces, to recreate something like the policy of agreement with the Sunni resistance in Iraq.
Obama has changed the war in Afghanistan -- and the conflict in Pakistan -- into the priority of imperialist policy. His strategy is to diminish the presence of troops in Iraq and concentrate the military and diplomatic effort on getting a victory against Al Qaeda.
According to the daily Washington Post, "Obama's administration is planning to explore a more regional strategy for the war in Afghanistan -- including possible conversations with Iran, that has played a mixed role on the eastern border of Afghanistan in the last few years, at times cooperating with the aims of the United States and at times aiding the extremists."
Obama's chances of getting greater cooperation from the NATO allies could be superior to those of the Bush administration, although at the moment no one has given indications of wanting to make a greater commitment. As for the "enemies," Obama has said he is for resuming the dialogue with Syria and with Iran, since his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan depend in large measure on cooperation from Iran. Many are speculating that the fall in oil prices will affect the popularity of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and that a leadership more inclined to negotiating with the United States will come out of the next elections, that take place next year. However, the openly pro-Israeli position that Obama has adopted, confirmed by the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as a central figure of his team, could make for the failure of this policy, on which a large part of the planned foreign policy "change" is based.
The profound economic crisis and the questioning of US authority by different social actors will be the coordinates of the next administration. The oppressed peoples of the world have nothing good to look forward to from Obama's presidency; he will be the new face of US imperialism and will seek to defend the interests of the capitalists and their corporations.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
US: Transition and Crisis
Obama is facing the most serious challenge to US authority
By Claudia Cinatti
One week after his election victory, Obama has begun to outline the key figures of his team, that will lead the transition in the little more than two months that remain before his taking office as President next January 20.
The names that have emerged are in tune with the strategy of lowering the expectations of "change" that his election caused and indicate that Obama will turn to the traditional establishment of imperialist policy to face up to the most serious challenge that has confronted the United States since the end of the Second World War.
Domestically, the country is going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. To the alarming figures that have been announced in the past week about the state of the economy was added Paulson's confession that the bailout package and buying "toxic assets" from banks has not really worked, and that it is necessary to change the strategy of government policy to revitalize the economy, which led to the nth fall of the Wall Street stock market. Internationally, Obama has still not found the solution to the two Bush-era wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and he will have to wrestle with the more general situation of instability in the Middle East, and, probably, with new conflicts that will arise in the meantime, of which the war between Russia and Georgia was only an early indicator.
In addition to this, there is the demand by France, China and other countries that a new international financial structure be established, as French President Sarkozy requested, a new "Bretton Woods" that would set up clear rules and permit more regulated economic functioning. In contrast with popular expectations by young people, workers, blacks and Latinos, who voted for Obama, and millions in the world that were hoping for "change," the imperialist bourgeoisie is hoping that the new face of US leadership will have a beneficial effect on its interests and that Obama's presidency can partially reverse the decline of US hegemony.
Towards another New Deal?
One of the big tests that Obama's administration will be subjected to will be the policy that it determines to face up to the profound recession that has already settled on the US. It should be enough to recall that the Big Three automakers, Chrysler, General Motors and Ford, the icons of US capitalism, are in serious problems, and that GM and Ford reported billion-dollar losses, $4.2 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively, in the last quarter.
Obama is avoiding acting like the new US President, hoping that Bush and Congress -- which is also resuming -- are the ones who will take some of the necessary measures. As part of this strategy, Obama will not attend the next meeting of the G-20, to take place on November 15.
In the November 7 press conference, the same day that the unemployment figures became known, Obama said he agreed with the need to implement a fiscal stimulus plan, to help reactivate the economy, extend unemployment insurance, that unemployed workers only receive for six months, reduce taxes on low-income households, and pass a government assistance package for the three automakers, which he repeated to Bush during the transition meeting they had on November 10. Up to now, Obama's economic policy, in addition to supporting Paulson's plan for bailing out the bankers, has been very moderate, and during the campaign he only promised some $60 billion, to be allocated between public works and social assistance.
The partisans of another New Deal consider that this policy is insufficient for facing the crisis. For instance, the Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, calculates that the stimulus package should be at least 4% of GDP, that is, some $600 billion. Last Monday, in his column in the daily New York Times, he advised Obama to show "audacity" in public spending. Comparing the current situation with that of the Great Depression, this economist concludes that although it is true that the New Deal failed to take the economy out of the Depression, this was owing to Roosevelt's excessive "prudence," and he advises Obama to "figure out how much help he thinks the economy needs, then add 50 percent," given that "It’s much better, in a depressed economy, to err on the side of too much stimulus than on the side of too little." Leaving aside the fact that Obama will become President with a monumental government debt, swollen by the bailout for the banks, which makes this "bold policy" difficult at least, one must say that Roosevelt did not lack "audacity" in government spending. This became clear when, faced with the failure of the New Deal, he turned towards war industry, with the enormous government investment that involved, which finally took the US economy out of the Depression, and, after the war, guaranteed decades of US dominance in the capitalist world. That is, the New Deal was the first step in a series of policies to protect the interests of the US imperialist bourgeoisie.
The big lesson that arises from the New Deal is that the political representatives of the bourgeoisie defend class interests that are opposed to those of workers and the oppressed minorities and that without touching the property of big capital and the enormous power of corporations (as Roosevelt failed to do with the property of the "60 families" that owned the US), sooner or later, capitalism will lead to new catastrophes.
Iraq, Afghanistan and foreign policy
Since his nomination as a presidential candidate, Obama has been surrounded by former Secretaries of State, like Brzezinski and M. Albright, analysts and military men from the "realist" group of the US imperialist foreign policy establishment. Their strategy is to repair the image of the United States in the world, an image seriously damaged by the unilateralism of the Bush years, and in that way get more cooperation from traditional allies and even from new actors, to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the least costly way possible and face the multiple challenges that the US will confront in the coming period.
In Iraq, on December 31 this year, the UN mandate that has covered the presence of imperialist troops expires, and tense negotiations are underway between the Iraqi government and the US over the terms of a possible agreement for extending the mandate. In addition, provincial elections, that are very important for the balance of forces among the different Shiite and Sunni factions, will be held in January.
The situation of NATO troops in Afghanistan has been seriously deteriorating since 2006. Unlike Iraq, where negotiations with Iran and the agreement with Sunni groups has permitted lowering the number of attacks against the occupation troops, in Afghanistan this year the number of attacks by the Taliban against NATO troops is the highest since 2001. The Taliban has recovered its ability to fight, as well as a big social base. President Karzai, a US puppet, is completely unpopular, and the conflict has spread to Pakistan.
Bush's policy was to pressure the Pakistani government that, after three months of fighting in which US troops participated, launched a brutal military attack in the border region of Bajaur to try to recover territory still under control of the Taliban and other tribal forces and prevent them from advancing on Peshawar. At the same time, it is attempting to find "reconcilable" groups among the Taliban and other hostile forces, to recreate something like the policy of agreement with the Sunni resistance in Iraq.
Obama has changed the war in Afghanistan -- and the conflict in Pakistan -- into the priority of imperialist policy. His strategy is to diminish the presence of troops in Iraq and concentrate the military and diplomatic effort on getting a victory against Al Qaeda.
According to the daily Washington Post, "Obama's administration is planning to explore a more regional strategy for the war in Afghanistan -- including possible conversations with Iran, that has played a mixed role on the eastern border of Afghanistan in the last few years, at times cooperating with the aims of the United States and at times aiding the extremists."
Obama's chances of getting greater cooperation from the NATO allies could be superior to those of the Bush administration, although at the moment no one has given indications of wanting to make a greater commitment. As for the "enemies," Obama has said he is for resuming the dialogue with Syria and with Iran, since his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan depend in large measure on cooperation from Iran. Many are speculating that the fall in oil prices will affect the popularity of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and that a leadership more inclined to negotiating with the United States will come out of the next elections, that take place next year. However, the openly pro-Israeli position that Obama has adopted, confirmed by the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as a central figure of his team, could make for the failure of this policy, on which a large part of the planned foreign policy "change" is based.
The profound economic crisis and the questioning of US authority by different social actors will be the coordinates of the next administration. The oppressed peoples of the world have nothing good to look forward to from Obama's presidency; he will be the new face of US imperialism and will seek to defend the interests of the capitalists and their corporations.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The President's Men: Under Obama, the fat cats will still control our lives
[This week's issue of La Verdad Obrera, from Buenos Aires, carries a story that shows the "change" Obama promised is not even much of a change from the ruling-class faces that were running the country before November 4; as detailed below, Obama's current advisors and possible future Cabinet members consist of Clinton administration retreads, Rahm Emanuel, who may as well be a Republican, and some actual Republicans. For US readers, I have added the titles of some of the Obama advisors, to show how closely leading figures in the new administration (but the same old ruling class) are linked to existing elite institutions and centers of power in the US. As economist Robert Pollin observed, US workers vote Democratic and get Republican results; undoubtedly, Obama's administration will be no exception. -- YM]
From: http://www.ft-ci.org/
La Verdad Obrera 303/International/Thursday, November 13, 2008
US: The President's Men
Only three days after having won the elections, Obama has announced the names of those who are going to carry out fundamental responsibilities in his transition team and in the future administration.
This "dream team" for the interests of the ruling class and US imperialism is composed of directors of corporations, former officials from the Reagan and Clinton administrations and Democrats with a reputation for being "hardliners." Even the participation of prominent Republicans is not ruled out; among them, some analysts are already saying that the current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, the former CIA agent and "pragmatic" conservative who runs the Pentagon and is therefore one of those mainly responsible for the military policy of US imperialism, could remain in his job.
Some of the main members of the transition team are:
John Podesta, in charge of directing the process of transition between the Bush administration and Obama's taking office. He was Clinton's chief of staff and is a well known lobbyist for oil and defense firms.
Rahm Emanuel will be Obama's White House chief of staff. This investor, with very close relationships with the Wall Street financial elite, currently occupies a seat in Congress. He is well known for being one of the main representatives of the right wing of the Democratic Party. He supported the war in Iraq and is an active Zionist militant, from a lobby that has a lot of influence on US foreign policy.
Among the economic advisors that accompanied Obama in his first press conference on November 7, the same day that the alarming unemployment figures were announced, were no less than:
Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who in 1979 carried out "shock therapy" that consisted in tripling interest rates, which caused a profound recession, and, in 1982, led to the "debt crisis" of the semicolonial countries.
Clinton's former Treasury Secretaries, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin, who is Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup. And the current President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Timothy Geithner. In summary, those who for the moment are advising Obama are some of the architects of the financial policies of the last few decades.
Just in case any doubt remained, in addition to these celebrities, executives of corporations like Time Warner, Xerox and Google, and even the multi-millionaire Warren Buffett, are among Obama's advisors.
From: http://www.ft-ci.org/
La Verdad Obrera 303/International/Thursday, November 13, 2008
US: The President's Men
Only three days after having won the elections, Obama has announced the names of those who are going to carry out fundamental responsibilities in his transition team and in the future administration.
This "dream team" for the interests of the ruling class and US imperialism is composed of directors of corporations, former officials from the Reagan and Clinton administrations and Democrats with a reputation for being "hardliners." Even the participation of prominent Republicans is not ruled out; among them, some analysts are already saying that the current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, the former CIA agent and "pragmatic" conservative who runs the Pentagon and is therefore one of those mainly responsible for the military policy of US imperialism, could remain in his job.
Some of the main members of the transition team are:
John Podesta, in charge of directing the process of transition between the Bush administration and Obama's taking office. He was Clinton's chief of staff and is a well known lobbyist for oil and defense firms.
Rahm Emanuel will be Obama's White House chief of staff. This investor, with very close relationships with the Wall Street financial elite, currently occupies a seat in Congress. He is well known for being one of the main representatives of the right wing of the Democratic Party. He supported the war in Iraq and is an active Zionist militant, from a lobby that has a lot of influence on US foreign policy.
Among the economic advisors that accompanied Obama in his first press conference on November 7, the same day that the alarming unemployment figures were announced, were no less than:
Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who in 1979 carried out "shock therapy" that consisted in tripling interest rates, which caused a profound recession, and, in 1982, led to the "debt crisis" of the semicolonial countries.
Clinton's former Treasury Secretaries, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin, who is Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup. And the current President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Timothy Geithner. In summary, those who for the moment are advising Obama are some of the architects of the financial policies of the last few decades.
Just in case any doubt remained, in addition to these celebrities, executives of corporations like Time Warner, Xerox and Google, and even the multi-millionaire Warren Buffett, are among Obama's advisors.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Fracción Trotskista on the US: The crisis and the wars brought Obama's election victory
From: http://www.ft-ci.org/
An African American is at the head of the main imperialist power
The crisis and the wars brought Obama's election victory
By Claudia Cinatti
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
On November 4, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, with the significance of being the first African American to achieve that. The Democratic candidate attained an ample victory (bigger in the difference of electors than in the percentage of the popular vote) over the Republican McCain-Palin ticket, and his party obtained a majority in both Houses of Congress, achieving the biggest electoral result since Lyndon Johnson's election in 1964.
Obama's election campaign, centered on a vague promise of "change," managed to excite millions of young people and workers, who hope that his administration will effectively lead to a radical change from that of George Bush and to reversing the "conservative revolution" of the last few decades. These expectations go beyond US borders, and at an international level, millions have the illusion that, under Obama's administration, the main imperialist power will have a more "benevolent" policy towards the rest of the world.
However, Obama's victory is not owing to his "personal qualities" or his "ability in oratory", nor is it the victory of the idea of "equality of opportunities" or of the "end of racism," as most analysts in the liberal press claim; rather it is the result of the disastrous situation in which the burden of two unwinnable and unfinished wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is combined with the outbreak of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of 1930. In that sense, it recalls, with all the differences of the case, the victory of the Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt over his Republican rival Herbert Hoover at the end of 1932, in a complete economic depression.
Obama will take office at a very critical moment for US imperialism. From the beginning, his presidency will be under the pressure of the economic crisis, which is already being expressed as a social crisis, with thousands of layoffs, as well as a growing number of families that have lost their housing, and challenges to US authority in the world. Without going further, Wall Street welcomed Obama's victory with a fall of 5% in the Dow Jones Index, the same as the NASDAQ and Standard and Poor's, showing that what predominates is the economic crisis and the recession, rather than the supposed enthusiasm for "change." As some analysts say, the real news of the day is not his victory, but the ever clearer confirmation of a "forced landing" of the Chinese economy, the other aspect, next to US overconsumption, of the growth cycle of the world economy of the last few years, which is abruptly coming to its end.
Between the illusions of the masses and the interests of the establishment
Obama's victory represents an important cultural change and has a strong symbolic impact for the African American minority and other oppressed minorities like Latinos (who voted for the Democratic candidate by more than 70%), in a country that originally based its "greatness" not only on the enslavement of blacks, but also on the fact that racial discrimination was legal in many states until scarcely 45 years ago, when the civil rights law was approved, and racism continues to be very strong in broad sectors.
The massive vote for the Democratic Party expresses, in a distorted manner, the popular rejection of the politics of the Bush era, identified with the disaster of the war in Iraq and an aggressive imperialist policy, with the enrichment of bankers, businessmen and the elite of corporate directors, with the tax cut for the rich, in short, with a monumental transfer of resources towards the richest 1% of the country. However, the determining factor was the leap in the world economic and financial crisis in the month of September (so-called "Black September"), when Obama's "responsible" attitude contrasted with the autism of the Republican candidate, who was denying the very existence of the crisis. Without the economic crisis underway, Obama's victory possibly would have been unthinkable, in spite of Bush's deterioration.
Although detailed analyses of the composition of the electoral base of each party were not available by press time, the geographical distribution of the vote shows that the Republican Party, although it is in a very big crisis and an intense internal division, that casts a shadow over one of the fundamental legs of the two-party system, kept its traditional base in the states of the so-called "Deep South," like Arizona and Texas and in the rural states of the center of the country (although they lost key places like Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, among other states that had been won by Bush in 2004). In spite of the enormous repudiation and extremely low popularity of the Bush administration, the Republican Party kept a significant electoral percentage, making it clear in its campaign that a strong right wing exists in the country. For its part, the Democratic Party obliterated [its rivals] in the eastern and Pacific coastal states and in the industrial states, like Ohio, which would indicate that significant sectors of the working class -- especially union members -- voted for Obama.
Popular expectations of "change" concretely mean measures to protect jobs, help for those who are about to lose their only housing, a health service that covers the more than 43 million US inhabitants that lack medical insurance, legalization of immigrants, policies against racism, increasing taxes on the rich, the end of the war in Iraq, and a radical change regarding the unilateral and militarist policies of the neo-conservative administration.
But after Obama's victory, these are not only the expectations of young people, workers, blacks and Latinos, but, above all, the decision of the ruling class establishment that, faced with the crisis and the deterioration of the Republican Party, chose Obama some time ago as the best candidate to fix the situation of the US in the world again and to wrestle with the social discontent that could be unleashed as the crisis and economic recession deepen. That is why the main Wall Street firms financed Obama's campaign, and among his advisors you will find the most experienced imperialist politicians, like, for instance, Brzezinski, the intellectual author of supporting the mujahidins against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Bush's former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who began the war against Iraq, Paul Volcker, head of the Federal Reserve in 1979, who kicked off the neoliberal offensive with the rise in interest rates, causing a deep recession, and Clinton's former Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin. One of Obama's main economic advisors is none other than Warren Buffett, the richest man in the world.
Before taking office, Obama already indicated that he will defend the interests of the capitalist class. He voted and lobbied for Paulson's bailout plan, that is, saving the bankers with $700 billion of government money. The Democratic vote was actually crucial for congressional approval of that plan, given the opposition of most Republicans in Congress to the plan of their own administration. This sum of millions contrasts with the modest $50 billion that Obama promised in his campaign, for public expenditure on public works and social expenditures, and scarcely $10 billion for those who owe on their mortgages.
The thing is, beyond his race, Obama belongs to the political elite that governs in favor of the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie, with their two main bosses' parties, Republicans and Democrats, alternating in office.
Obama and the crisis of US hegemony
On the international plane, Obama will have to struggle with the heavy inheritance of the Bush administration and its "preventive war," that led to the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars that the US did not manage to resolve in its favor. This strategic error, by the neoconservatives who sought to take advantage of the September 11, 2001 attacks to strengthen US authority in the world with an aggressive imperialist policy, by appealing to military supremacy and unilateralism, qualitatively weakened the position of the US, gave rise to unprecedented anti-Americanism, mainly in the Middle East, Latin America, and, to a large extent, in "old" Europe, and facilitated the emergence of other political actors on the international scene. This situation of weakness was obvious during the war between Russia and Georgia, a US ally, where Bush could not line up the European powers behind his policy, especially Germany, which favored its own interests concerning Russia, the same as France, in spite of the pro-Americanism of its President, Sarkozy. Far from the illusions of activists and the anti-war movement, the foreign policy that Obama set forth during the campaign is particularly centered on gradually withdrawing troops from Iraq and reconcentrating military power in Afghanistan, where the Talibans recovered, and the conflict spread to Pakistan, to get an imperialist victory there. Unlike the hard position of John McCain, essentially continuing Bush's policy, Obama declared himself to be a supporter of a "dialogue without conditions" with Iran, in order, through diplomacy, to try to get a wing of the government inclined to US interests. Although it is still not clear what Obama would have up his sleeve to tempt the Iranians, this policy contradicts the maintainance of the unconditional alliance with the State of Israel, which is pushing for a more offensive policy against the Iranian regime. If an arrangement with the regime of the ayatollahs is not achieved, Obama's promise to withdraw troops from Iraq could remain up in the air, given the vacuum that the withdrawal of US troops without a clear agreement would cause in the region. Finally, the President-elect declared himself to be in favor of a more multilateral focus, to permit collaboration by other powers, essentially centered on seeking European cooperation in the war in Afghanistan, a matter that does not elicit much sympathy among the European governments, in spite of their semi-naive enthusiasm over the new President-elect.
An African American is at the head of the main imperialist power
The crisis and the wars brought Obama's election victory
By Claudia Cinatti
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
On November 4, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, with the significance of being the first African American to achieve that. The Democratic candidate attained an ample victory (bigger in the difference of electors than in the percentage of the popular vote) over the Republican McCain-Palin ticket, and his party obtained a majority in both Houses of Congress, achieving the biggest electoral result since Lyndon Johnson's election in 1964.
Obama's election campaign, centered on a vague promise of "change," managed to excite millions of young people and workers, who hope that his administration will effectively lead to a radical change from that of George Bush and to reversing the "conservative revolution" of the last few decades. These expectations go beyond US borders, and at an international level, millions have the illusion that, under Obama's administration, the main imperialist power will have a more "benevolent" policy towards the rest of the world.
However, Obama's victory is not owing to his "personal qualities" or his "ability in oratory", nor is it the victory of the idea of "equality of opportunities" or of the "end of racism," as most analysts in the liberal press claim; rather it is the result of the disastrous situation in which the burden of two unwinnable and unfinished wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is combined with the outbreak of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of 1930. In that sense, it recalls, with all the differences of the case, the victory of the Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt over his Republican rival Herbert Hoover at the end of 1932, in a complete economic depression.
Obama will take office at a very critical moment for US imperialism. From the beginning, his presidency will be under the pressure of the economic crisis, which is already being expressed as a social crisis, with thousands of layoffs, as well as a growing number of families that have lost their housing, and challenges to US authority in the world. Without going further, Wall Street welcomed Obama's victory with a fall of 5% in the Dow Jones Index, the same as the NASDAQ and Standard and Poor's, showing that what predominates is the economic crisis and the recession, rather than the supposed enthusiasm for "change." As some analysts say, the real news of the day is not his victory, but the ever clearer confirmation of a "forced landing" of the Chinese economy, the other aspect, next to US overconsumption, of the growth cycle of the world economy of the last few years, which is abruptly coming to its end.
Between the illusions of the masses and the interests of the establishment
Obama's victory represents an important cultural change and has a strong symbolic impact for the African American minority and other oppressed minorities like Latinos (who voted for the Democratic candidate by more than 70%), in a country that originally based its "greatness" not only on the enslavement of blacks, but also on the fact that racial discrimination was legal in many states until scarcely 45 years ago, when the civil rights law was approved, and racism continues to be very strong in broad sectors.
The massive vote for the Democratic Party expresses, in a distorted manner, the popular rejection of the politics of the Bush era, identified with the disaster of the war in Iraq and an aggressive imperialist policy, with the enrichment of bankers, businessmen and the elite of corporate directors, with the tax cut for the rich, in short, with a monumental transfer of resources towards the richest 1% of the country. However, the determining factor was the leap in the world economic and financial crisis in the month of September (so-called "Black September"), when Obama's "responsible" attitude contrasted with the autism of the Republican candidate, who was denying the very existence of the crisis. Without the economic crisis underway, Obama's victory possibly would have been unthinkable, in spite of Bush's deterioration.
Although detailed analyses of the composition of the electoral base of each party were not available by press time, the geographical distribution of the vote shows that the Republican Party, although it is in a very big crisis and an intense internal division, that casts a shadow over one of the fundamental legs of the two-party system, kept its traditional base in the states of the so-called "Deep South," like Arizona and Texas and in the rural states of the center of the country (although they lost key places like Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, among other states that had been won by Bush in 2004). In spite of the enormous repudiation and extremely low popularity of the Bush administration, the Republican Party kept a significant electoral percentage, making it clear in its campaign that a strong right wing exists in the country. For its part, the Democratic Party obliterated [its rivals] in the eastern and Pacific coastal states and in the industrial states, like Ohio, which would indicate that significant sectors of the working class -- especially union members -- voted for Obama.
Popular expectations of "change" concretely mean measures to protect jobs, help for those who are about to lose their only housing, a health service that covers the more than 43 million US inhabitants that lack medical insurance, legalization of immigrants, policies against racism, increasing taxes on the rich, the end of the war in Iraq, and a radical change regarding the unilateral and militarist policies of the neo-conservative administration.
But after Obama's victory, these are not only the expectations of young people, workers, blacks and Latinos, but, above all, the decision of the ruling class establishment that, faced with the crisis and the deterioration of the Republican Party, chose Obama some time ago as the best candidate to fix the situation of the US in the world again and to wrestle with the social discontent that could be unleashed as the crisis and economic recession deepen. That is why the main Wall Street firms financed Obama's campaign, and among his advisors you will find the most experienced imperialist politicians, like, for instance, Brzezinski, the intellectual author of supporting the mujahidins against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Bush's former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who began the war against Iraq, Paul Volcker, head of the Federal Reserve in 1979, who kicked off the neoliberal offensive with the rise in interest rates, causing a deep recession, and Clinton's former Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin. One of Obama's main economic advisors is none other than Warren Buffett, the richest man in the world.
Before taking office, Obama already indicated that he will defend the interests of the capitalist class. He voted and lobbied for Paulson's bailout plan, that is, saving the bankers with $700 billion of government money. The Democratic vote was actually crucial for congressional approval of that plan, given the opposition of most Republicans in Congress to the plan of their own administration. This sum of millions contrasts with the modest $50 billion that Obama promised in his campaign, for public expenditure on public works and social expenditures, and scarcely $10 billion for those who owe on their mortgages.
The thing is, beyond his race, Obama belongs to the political elite that governs in favor of the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie, with their two main bosses' parties, Republicans and Democrats, alternating in office.
Obama and the crisis of US hegemony
On the international plane, Obama will have to struggle with the heavy inheritance of the Bush administration and its "preventive war," that led to the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars that the US did not manage to resolve in its favor. This strategic error, by the neoconservatives who sought to take advantage of the September 11, 2001 attacks to strengthen US authority in the world with an aggressive imperialist policy, by appealing to military supremacy and unilateralism, qualitatively weakened the position of the US, gave rise to unprecedented anti-Americanism, mainly in the Middle East, Latin America, and, to a large extent, in "old" Europe, and facilitated the emergence of other political actors on the international scene. This situation of weakness was obvious during the war between Russia and Georgia, a US ally, where Bush could not line up the European powers behind his policy, especially Germany, which favored its own interests concerning Russia, the same as France, in spite of the pro-Americanism of its President, Sarkozy. Far from the illusions of activists and the anti-war movement, the foreign policy that Obama set forth during the campaign is particularly centered on gradually withdrawing troops from Iraq and reconcentrating military power in Afghanistan, where the Talibans recovered, and the conflict spread to Pakistan, to get an imperialist victory there. Unlike the hard position of John McCain, essentially continuing Bush's policy, Obama declared himself to be a supporter of a "dialogue without conditions" with Iran, in order, through diplomacy, to try to get a wing of the government inclined to US interests. Although it is still not clear what Obama would have up his sleeve to tempt the Iranians, this policy contradicts the maintainance of the unconditional alliance with the State of Israel, which is pushing for a more offensive policy against the Iranian regime. If an arrangement with the regime of the ayatollahs is not achieved, Obama's promise to withdraw troops from Iraq could remain up in the air, given the vacuum that the withdrawal of US troops without a clear agreement would cause in the region. Finally, the President-elect declared himself to be in favor of a more multilateral focus, to permit collaboration by other powers, essentially centered on seeking European cooperation in the war in Afghanistan, a matter that does not elicit much sympathy among the European governments, in spite of their semi-naive enthusiasm over the new President-elect.
Whatever the political orientation that he ends up defining, the complex international situation will quickly test the viability of his policy. The profound economic crisis, combined with the military failures, is seriously questioning the bases of US power. Although no power is able to contest US hegemony, significant regional powers like Russia or China and even their main allies, like the European powers, could indeed dispute the terms of US authority. A preview, perhaps, of what is coming is the coldness with which Medvedev's Russian government welcomed Obama's victory. by reaffirming its policy of locating short-range missiles on the eastern border of Russia, if the US goes ahead with its plan to install a missile system in Eastern Europe.
In this scenario, where, for the first time since 1973, the whole world is marching towards recession, it is most likely that the rivalry among capitalist corporations and their states will break out again, which will facilitate the development of regional conflicts and open a period of great instability and inter-government tensions on an international level.
Perspectives after Obama's victory
In the next few weeks, it will be seen which tendencies the composition of Obama's cabinet expresses; until now, he has been surrounded by key figures from the Clinton administration. The transition from the election to becoming President on January 20, 2009 (in reality, this process can last beyond the formal dates, owing to the process of congressional approval of all candidates) could be a period of great political instability, both in the US and internationally, with unexpected challenges that seek to test the new President.
But the big challenge for his own administration could, in this case, come from within the US, given the magnitude and heavy burden that the monumental economic crisis entails. Earlier rather than later, the illusions and expectations of the workers, the black and Latino minorities, and the millions that see their livelihoods threatened by the recession, will collide with the reality that Obama's administration will not defend their interests, but the interests of the big imperialist corporations and banks.
Most of the "progressive" sectors that, with more or less enthusiasm, called for voting for Obama, justified their position in that his administration will be more susceptible to pressure from workers' struggles. Roosevelt in the 1930's, Kennedy in the 1960's, and Obama in 2009, confirm once and again that beyond "liberal" (or "leftist") rhetoric, or "populist" policies, like the New Deal, the Democratic Party, together with the Republican Party, defends the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie. It should be sufficient to recall that during Kennedy's presidency the US invaded Cuba, the Democrat Johnson began the war in Vietnam, and that Roosevelt himself, when his New Deal policy appeared incapable of revitalizing the US economy, and a new crisis occurred in 1937, changed the New Deal into the "War Deal," that is, he changed the direction of the economy toward war preparations in 1938, to challenge Nazi Germany and Great Britain for world hegemony. It was this "war industry" that effectively permitted the recovery of the economy and allowed the US to enter the war and come out as the only hegemonic power in 1945, although on a worldwide scale, it shared authority in the world with the Soviet Union. We say this, although it still remains to be seen if Obama will make a significant change of direction in economic policy in the context of defending the bourgeois imperialist regime. Nor can we rule out a clearly protectionist drastic change, as some election rhetoric from the former candidate and the Democratic majority of the two Houses of Congress could presuppose.
Historically, the "lesser evil" strategy has favored the Democratic Party's acting to contain the "progressive" middle sectors and the tendencies of the advanced workers to radicalization, as occurred in the 1930's, with Roosevelt's cooptation of the CIO's militant unionism, or at the end of the 1960's with the movement against the war in Vietnam. This has been a big obstacle for the political independence of the workers, the majority of whom vote for the Democratic Party.
The depth of the economic crisis and the new historical period that is beginning will probably accelerate the experiment with Obama's administration. Illusions or frustrated expectations could translate into class struggle and the emergence of new political phenomena, as occurred in the 1930's with the rise of the CIO (at first, "Committee for Industrial Organization" and from 1937, "Congress of Industrial Organizations"), which in a few months attracted to its ranks thousands of unskilled workers, that were rejected by the union bureaucracy of the AFL ("American Federation of Labor"). This phenomenon of workers' activism was part of a rise of combative strikes by employed and unemployed workers, like those of the Toledo automotive workers in 1934 or the Minneapolis Teamsers.
It is true that history does not repreat itself, but it also true that we are in a crisis of a historical magnitude similar to that which gave rise to the most intense processes of radicalization of the US working class. In the coming period, the possibility will be open that the working class, which has been struck hard since the Reagan administration, and which has suffered harsh defeats in the last 30 years of the neoliberal offensive, during which its union representation was reduced to only 12% of the workforce, will recover its organization, and that the opportunity will be opened for US workers and the oppressed minorities to break with the parties of those that exploit them.
In this scenario, where, for the first time since 1973, the whole world is marching towards recession, it is most likely that the rivalry among capitalist corporations and their states will break out again, which will facilitate the development of regional conflicts and open a period of great instability and inter-government tensions on an international level.
Perspectives after Obama's victory
In the next few weeks, it will be seen which tendencies the composition of Obama's cabinet expresses; until now, he has been surrounded by key figures from the Clinton administration. The transition from the election to becoming President on January 20, 2009 (in reality, this process can last beyond the formal dates, owing to the process of congressional approval of all candidates) could be a period of great political instability, both in the US and internationally, with unexpected challenges that seek to test the new President.
But the big challenge for his own administration could, in this case, come from within the US, given the magnitude and heavy burden that the monumental economic crisis entails. Earlier rather than later, the illusions and expectations of the workers, the black and Latino minorities, and the millions that see their livelihoods threatened by the recession, will collide with the reality that Obama's administration will not defend their interests, but the interests of the big imperialist corporations and banks.
Most of the "progressive" sectors that, with more or less enthusiasm, called for voting for Obama, justified their position in that his administration will be more susceptible to pressure from workers' struggles. Roosevelt in the 1930's, Kennedy in the 1960's, and Obama in 2009, confirm once and again that beyond "liberal" (or "leftist") rhetoric, or "populist" policies, like the New Deal, the Democratic Party, together with the Republican Party, defends the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie. It should be sufficient to recall that during Kennedy's presidency the US invaded Cuba, the Democrat Johnson began the war in Vietnam, and that Roosevelt himself, when his New Deal policy appeared incapable of revitalizing the US economy, and a new crisis occurred in 1937, changed the New Deal into the "War Deal," that is, he changed the direction of the economy toward war preparations in 1938, to challenge Nazi Germany and Great Britain for world hegemony. It was this "war industry" that effectively permitted the recovery of the economy and allowed the US to enter the war and come out as the only hegemonic power in 1945, although on a worldwide scale, it shared authority in the world with the Soviet Union. We say this, although it still remains to be seen if Obama will make a significant change of direction in economic policy in the context of defending the bourgeois imperialist regime. Nor can we rule out a clearly protectionist drastic change, as some election rhetoric from the former candidate and the Democratic majority of the two Houses of Congress could presuppose.
Historically, the "lesser evil" strategy has favored the Democratic Party's acting to contain the "progressive" middle sectors and the tendencies of the advanced workers to radicalization, as occurred in the 1930's, with Roosevelt's cooptation of the CIO's militant unionism, or at the end of the 1960's with the movement against the war in Vietnam. This has been a big obstacle for the political independence of the workers, the majority of whom vote for the Democratic Party.
The depth of the economic crisis and the new historical period that is beginning will probably accelerate the experiment with Obama's administration. Illusions or frustrated expectations could translate into class struggle and the emergence of new political phenomena, as occurred in the 1930's with the rise of the CIO (at first, "Committee for Industrial Organization" and from 1937, "Congress of Industrial Organizations"), which in a few months attracted to its ranks thousands of unskilled workers, that were rejected by the union bureaucracy of the AFL ("American Federation of Labor"). This phenomenon of workers' activism was part of a rise of combative strikes by employed and unemployed workers, like those of the Toledo automotive workers in 1934 or the Minneapolis Teamsers.
It is true that history does not repreat itself, but it also true that we are in a crisis of a historical magnitude similar to that which gave rise to the most intense processes of radicalization of the US working class. In the coming period, the possibility will be open that the working class, which has been struck hard since the Reagan administration, and which has suffered harsh defeats in the last 30 years of the neoliberal offensive, during which its union representation was reduced to only 12% of the workforce, will recover its organization, and that the opportunity will be opened for US workers and the oppressed minorities to break with the parties of those that exploit them.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
James P. Cannon against the 1948 Henry Wallace Campaign
James P. Cannon opposes the third (capitalist) party 1948 Henry Wallace Campaign
[In 1948, James P. Cannon, the principal founder of Trotskyism in the US, spoke out unequivocally against the bourgeois third-party candidacy of Henry Wallace, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first Vice President. Cannon faced a minority in the then Trotskyist SWP, which proposed that Trotskyists support Wallace's presidential campaign. Cannon's characterization of the Henry Wallace campaign as "completely bourgeois," with "not a trace of a principled difference" from the Democrats and Republicans, absolutely applies to the current presidential campaigns of dissident Democrat Cynthia McKinney, candidate of the pro-capitalist Green Party, who is running to push the Democrats to the left, and perennial presidential candidate, anti-Mexican, anti-Chinese, multi-millionaire (worth $3.9 million in the year 2000) Ralph Nader, a lifelong Democrat. In 1984, Nader, the darling of the suburban petite bourgeoisie, watched as a union organizing drive at his magazine Multinational Monitor was smashed (at Nader's request). Then Nader's lawyers dragged the union organizer into court on a completely bogus charge. In 2004, Nader ran as the presidential candidate of the viciously xenophobic, anti-immigrant "Reform" Party. What a guy! --YM]
Cannon's statement, which follows, comes from his remarks at a February 1948 meeting of the SWP's National Committee:
The Wallace party must be opposed and denounced by every class criterion. In the first place it is programmatically completely bourgeois, as all the comrades have recognized. Its differences with the Republican and Democratic parties are purely tactical. There is not a trace of a principled difference anywhere. And by principled difference I mean a class difference.
A reasonable argument could be made for the support of Wallace’s movement in any circle of American capitalism. The fundamental issue that he is raising is the question of policy towards the Soviet Union. Wallace’s policy can be just as much a preparation for war as the Truman-Marshall program. Just as much. It is a matter of opinion as to which is the most effective way of preparing war against the Soviet Union—whether by an outward effort to reach agreement by concessions in order to prepare better and put the onus of responsibility on the Soviet Union before the fight starts, or by the rough and tumble “get tough” policy of Truman and Marshall. At any rate it is a tactical difference within the camp of the bourgeoisie.
It would be very, very bad and demoralizing if we would allow for a moment the antiwar demagogy of Wallace to be taken by any member of our party as something preferable to the blatant aggressiveness of Truman and Marshall. That would be nothing less than the preparation of the minds of party members for “lesser evil” politics—based on the theory that one kind of capitalist tactics in the expansion of American imperialism is preferable to another, and that the workers should intervene to support one against the other.
If I read the documents correctly, the argument is made by the Chicago comrades that the capitalists do not support Wallace and therefore it is not a capitalist party. I think it is quite correct that all, or nearly all, of the monopoly capitalists at the present moment oppose Wallace. That is not decisive at all as to the class character of the party. The class character of the party is not determined by the class that supports the party at the moment but rather by the class that the party supports. In other words, by its program. That is the decisive line.
. . .
The class character of the party is determined first by its program; secondly by its actual policy in practice; and thirdly by its composition and control....
The control of the Wallace movement rests in the hands of Wallace and those he supports. He determines the candidates and he determines the program. To talk about getting into the movement to change its program and get another candidate—that’s absurd! The program and the candidate are presented to you in a finished package: Wallace for President, and Wallace’s program. He made a speech in Cincinnati where he took up the challenge. He said: “Yes, I accept the support of the Communists, but when they come into our movement they don’t come in to support their program—they support our program.” He was quite right.
Of course you have only to look around to see that the bulk of Wallace’s organized support at the moment is Stalinist—the Stalinist party, Stalinist-dominated unions, Stalinist front organizations, etc. But these Stalinist unions in the Wallace movement function as supporting organizations and not as controlling powers. They roughly play the same role toward Wallace’s wrapped-up, pre-determined program as the PAC and the Political Committee of the AFL will play in the Truman movement....They represent far more workers than the Stalinists in the Wallace camp, but that still doesn’t make the Democratic Party a labor party.
The same is true about the Wallace movement. Get into the Wallace movement and change its program and candidate? Even from a practical point of view it seems to be completely utopian. The whole movement is organized on the basis of the candidacy of Wallace and his program. To join the formation and holler for a different program, a different man—this seems to contradict the whole premise of the movement. They would say to you: “If you’re not a Wallace man, why do you join the Wallace movement?” It would be a very difficult question to answer.
The Wallace movement has another ugly side to it. It appears as a one-man Messiah movement. He is the head of a “Gideon’s Army” throwing the bible at his adversaries. That, it seems to me, is the worst kind of substitute for independent political action by the workers’ own organizations. Wallace’s Messiah movement is a diversion and an obstacle in the way of a labor party. Support for it cannot be considered for a moment. On the contrary, it must be exposed and fought.
. . .
America’s Two-Party System
The traditional two-party system in the United States has been very well suited for normal times. The ruling capitalists couldn’t ask for anything better than this system which absorbs shocks and grievances by shifting people from one bourgeois party to another. But that system can blow up in time of crisis. The aggravation of the crisis which we all see ahead can shake up the whole American political situation, so that the old two-party system will no longer suffice to serve the needs of the American bourgeoisie.
The Democratic Party is a badly shaken organism already. The whole structure can fly apart in times of crisis. It is quite evident now that the AFL-CIO scheme to deliver the labor vote once more to the Democratic Party is meeting strong resistance, even if this resistance is more passive than active. That seems to be one of the undisputable factors of the present political situation. The AFL and CIO chiefs may raise five, ten or even fifteen million dollars for the election campaign. But there is no confidence among them that they can get out the labor vote for Truman as they did for Roosevelt.
The less it becomes possible to mobilize the workers’ votes for one or the other of these two old bourgeois parties, the more impelling and powerful will become the urge of the workers to found a party of their own or to seek a substitute for it. That mood of the workers will create a condition wherein American capitalism will objectively require a pseudo-radical party to divert the workers from a party of their own. This development, in my opinion, will most likely precede the development of a mass fascist party. America will most likely see a new radical bourgeois reform party before the development of American fascism on a mass scale.
That is what really happened in the Thirties, in a peculiarly distorted form. Roosevelt revamped the Democratic Party to serve the role of a pseudo-radical, “almost” workers party. By that he choked off entirely, for the period, the development toward an independent labor party. The Roosevelt “New Deal” became a sort of American substitute for the social program of the old, social democracy. Is a repetition of that performance likely within the framework of the Democratic Party? I doubt that very much. I think there can be only one Roosevelt episode. The whole trend since his death has been in the other direction.
Next time, the role played by Roosevelt—which was a role of salvation for American capitalism—will most likely require a new party. In the essence of the matter that is what Wallace’s party is. Wallace is the, as yet, unacknowledged, candidate for the role of diverting the workers’ movement for independent political action into the channel of bourgeois politics dressed up with radical demagogy which costs nothing. That is what we have to say, and that’s what we have to fight—vigorously and openly, and with no qualifications at all. We have to be 100% anti-Wallaceites. We have to stir up the workers against this imposter, and explain to them that they will never get a party of their own by accepting substitutes.
Summary
The slogan: “Build An Independent Labor Party!” is a slogan for the class mobilization of the workers. In some incomprehensible way this seems to have been transformed in the minds of some comrades as a mere demand to break the two-party system of the capitalists. This is not the same thing at all. It means merely a bourgeois party shake-up and not a class alignment.
Now, a break-up of the two party parliamentary system in America is undoubtedly a good thing. It destroys the fetish of the trade union bureaucracy to the effect that it is impossible to operate on the political field outside the traditional pattern. Splits in the two old bourgeois parties are bound to shake up the labor bureaucracy, loosen things up and create a more favorable situation for agitation for the formation of a labor party. But this break-up of the two-party system and splits in the bourgeois parties come about under the pressure of social crisis. These are not our tasks. Bourgeois parties are not the arena for our operation. Our specific task is the class mobilization of the workers against not only the two old parties, but any other capitalist parties which might appear.
. . .
The opposing comrades admit that we would have to pay a price to work inside the Wallace party. The admission price is just simply this: Get in there and rustle votes for Wallace for president. If you won’t pay that price you cannot get in. You have no grounds even to haggle, because it is a Wallace for President movement. That is a price we cannot pay, because it is a price of principle. It is against our principles to solicit votes for bourgeois candidates under any circumstances. It vitiates the whole concept of independent working class political action.
It is wrong to assume that the Wallace party has a great future—that it is certain or nearly certain to become a future labor party. And it is doubly wrong to say, “This is the last chance to get in,” or something approximately of that sort. A mass labor party in the United States, by its very nature, couldn’t be a closed corporation....
Influence in mass parties is not determined by how long you have been there, but how much force you have. If we are in the unions and have forces there, we will be a power in any labor party formation that arises, the moment we join it, roughly in proportion to the strength of our forces in the unions and the general propagandistic power of our press.
. . .
LaFolette’s 1924 Campaign
We had an experience in 1924 in this country of a third party headed by Senator LaFollette, which was quite different from the Wallace movement in this respect—that it had a much broader base of support in the labor movement. Instead of merely one small sector of the trade union movement supporting it, as is the case with the Wallace party, LaFollette’s party was supported officially by the AFL and by the Railroad Brotherhoods, and even by the Socialist Party, which gave up its traditional independence. The Communist Party ran its own candidates and for the first time put itself on the national political map. The Socialist Party traded its independence for the privilege of going along with this bourgeois movement supported by the workers. They broke for the first time their traditional principle of no combinations with bourgeois parties and no support of bourgeois parties. That was an important stage in the degeneration of the American Socialist Party. They gave a finger to the LaFollette movement; eventually the bulk of the Social Democrats gave their whole hand to Roosevelt.
[In 1948, James P. Cannon, the principal founder of Trotskyism in the US, spoke out unequivocally against the bourgeois third-party candidacy of Henry Wallace, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first Vice President. Cannon faced a minority in the then Trotskyist SWP, which proposed that Trotskyists support Wallace's presidential campaign. Cannon's characterization of the Henry Wallace campaign as "completely bourgeois," with "not a trace of a principled difference" from the Democrats and Republicans, absolutely applies to the current presidential campaigns of dissident Democrat Cynthia McKinney, candidate of the pro-capitalist Green Party, who is running to push the Democrats to the left, and perennial presidential candidate, anti-Mexican, anti-Chinese, multi-millionaire (worth $3.9 million in the year 2000) Ralph Nader, a lifelong Democrat. In 1984, Nader, the darling of the suburban petite bourgeoisie, watched as a union organizing drive at his magazine Multinational Monitor was smashed (at Nader's request). Then Nader's lawyers dragged the union organizer into court on a completely bogus charge. In 2004, Nader ran as the presidential candidate of the viciously xenophobic, anti-immigrant "Reform" Party. What a guy! --YM]
Cannon's statement, which follows, comes from his remarks at a February 1948 meeting of the SWP's National Committee:
The Wallace party must be opposed and denounced by every class criterion. In the first place it is programmatically completely bourgeois, as all the comrades have recognized. Its differences with the Republican and Democratic parties are purely tactical. There is not a trace of a principled difference anywhere. And by principled difference I mean a class difference.
A reasonable argument could be made for the support of Wallace’s movement in any circle of American capitalism. The fundamental issue that he is raising is the question of policy towards the Soviet Union. Wallace’s policy can be just as much a preparation for war as the Truman-Marshall program. Just as much. It is a matter of opinion as to which is the most effective way of preparing war against the Soviet Union—whether by an outward effort to reach agreement by concessions in order to prepare better and put the onus of responsibility on the Soviet Union before the fight starts, or by the rough and tumble “get tough” policy of Truman and Marshall. At any rate it is a tactical difference within the camp of the bourgeoisie.
It would be very, very bad and demoralizing if we would allow for a moment the antiwar demagogy of Wallace to be taken by any member of our party as something preferable to the blatant aggressiveness of Truman and Marshall. That would be nothing less than the preparation of the minds of party members for “lesser evil” politics—based on the theory that one kind of capitalist tactics in the expansion of American imperialism is preferable to another, and that the workers should intervene to support one against the other.
If I read the documents correctly, the argument is made by the Chicago comrades that the capitalists do not support Wallace and therefore it is not a capitalist party. I think it is quite correct that all, or nearly all, of the monopoly capitalists at the present moment oppose Wallace. That is not decisive at all as to the class character of the party. The class character of the party is not determined by the class that supports the party at the moment but rather by the class that the party supports. In other words, by its program. That is the decisive line.
. . .
The class character of the party is determined first by its program; secondly by its actual policy in practice; and thirdly by its composition and control....
The control of the Wallace movement rests in the hands of Wallace and those he supports. He determines the candidates and he determines the program. To talk about getting into the movement to change its program and get another candidate—that’s absurd! The program and the candidate are presented to you in a finished package: Wallace for President, and Wallace’s program. He made a speech in Cincinnati where he took up the challenge. He said: “Yes, I accept the support of the Communists, but when they come into our movement they don’t come in to support their program—they support our program.” He was quite right.
Of course you have only to look around to see that the bulk of Wallace’s organized support at the moment is Stalinist—the Stalinist party, Stalinist-dominated unions, Stalinist front organizations, etc. But these Stalinist unions in the Wallace movement function as supporting organizations and not as controlling powers. They roughly play the same role toward Wallace’s wrapped-up, pre-determined program as the PAC and the Political Committee of the AFL will play in the Truman movement....They represent far more workers than the Stalinists in the Wallace camp, but that still doesn’t make the Democratic Party a labor party.
The same is true about the Wallace movement. Get into the Wallace movement and change its program and candidate? Even from a practical point of view it seems to be completely utopian. The whole movement is organized on the basis of the candidacy of Wallace and his program. To join the formation and holler for a different program, a different man—this seems to contradict the whole premise of the movement. They would say to you: “If you’re not a Wallace man, why do you join the Wallace movement?” It would be a very difficult question to answer.
The Wallace movement has another ugly side to it. It appears as a one-man Messiah movement. He is the head of a “Gideon’s Army” throwing the bible at his adversaries. That, it seems to me, is the worst kind of substitute for independent political action by the workers’ own organizations. Wallace’s Messiah movement is a diversion and an obstacle in the way of a labor party. Support for it cannot be considered for a moment. On the contrary, it must be exposed and fought.
. . .
America’s Two-Party System
The traditional two-party system in the United States has been very well suited for normal times. The ruling capitalists couldn’t ask for anything better than this system which absorbs shocks and grievances by shifting people from one bourgeois party to another. But that system can blow up in time of crisis. The aggravation of the crisis which we all see ahead can shake up the whole American political situation, so that the old two-party system will no longer suffice to serve the needs of the American bourgeoisie.
The Democratic Party is a badly shaken organism already. The whole structure can fly apart in times of crisis. It is quite evident now that the AFL-CIO scheme to deliver the labor vote once more to the Democratic Party is meeting strong resistance, even if this resistance is more passive than active. That seems to be one of the undisputable factors of the present political situation. The AFL and CIO chiefs may raise five, ten or even fifteen million dollars for the election campaign. But there is no confidence among them that they can get out the labor vote for Truman as they did for Roosevelt.
The less it becomes possible to mobilize the workers’ votes for one or the other of these two old bourgeois parties, the more impelling and powerful will become the urge of the workers to found a party of their own or to seek a substitute for it. That mood of the workers will create a condition wherein American capitalism will objectively require a pseudo-radical party to divert the workers from a party of their own. This development, in my opinion, will most likely precede the development of a mass fascist party. America will most likely see a new radical bourgeois reform party before the development of American fascism on a mass scale.
That is what really happened in the Thirties, in a peculiarly distorted form. Roosevelt revamped the Democratic Party to serve the role of a pseudo-radical, “almost” workers party. By that he choked off entirely, for the period, the development toward an independent labor party. The Roosevelt “New Deal” became a sort of American substitute for the social program of the old, social democracy. Is a repetition of that performance likely within the framework of the Democratic Party? I doubt that very much. I think there can be only one Roosevelt episode. The whole trend since his death has been in the other direction.
Next time, the role played by Roosevelt—which was a role of salvation for American capitalism—will most likely require a new party. In the essence of the matter that is what Wallace’s party is. Wallace is the, as yet, unacknowledged, candidate for the role of diverting the workers’ movement for independent political action into the channel of bourgeois politics dressed up with radical demagogy which costs nothing. That is what we have to say, and that’s what we have to fight—vigorously and openly, and with no qualifications at all. We have to be 100% anti-Wallaceites. We have to stir up the workers against this imposter, and explain to them that they will never get a party of their own by accepting substitutes.
Summary
The slogan: “Build An Independent Labor Party!” is a slogan for the class mobilization of the workers. In some incomprehensible way this seems to have been transformed in the minds of some comrades as a mere demand to break the two-party system of the capitalists. This is not the same thing at all. It means merely a bourgeois party shake-up and not a class alignment.
Now, a break-up of the two party parliamentary system in America is undoubtedly a good thing. It destroys the fetish of the trade union bureaucracy to the effect that it is impossible to operate on the political field outside the traditional pattern. Splits in the two old bourgeois parties are bound to shake up the labor bureaucracy, loosen things up and create a more favorable situation for agitation for the formation of a labor party. But this break-up of the two-party system and splits in the bourgeois parties come about under the pressure of social crisis. These are not our tasks. Bourgeois parties are not the arena for our operation. Our specific task is the class mobilization of the workers against not only the two old parties, but any other capitalist parties which might appear.
. . .
The opposing comrades admit that we would have to pay a price to work inside the Wallace party. The admission price is just simply this: Get in there and rustle votes for Wallace for president. If you won’t pay that price you cannot get in. You have no grounds even to haggle, because it is a Wallace for President movement. That is a price we cannot pay, because it is a price of principle. It is against our principles to solicit votes for bourgeois candidates under any circumstances. It vitiates the whole concept of independent working class political action.
It is wrong to assume that the Wallace party has a great future—that it is certain or nearly certain to become a future labor party. And it is doubly wrong to say, “This is the last chance to get in,” or something approximately of that sort. A mass labor party in the United States, by its very nature, couldn’t be a closed corporation....
Influence in mass parties is not determined by how long you have been there, but how much force you have. If we are in the unions and have forces there, we will be a power in any labor party formation that arises, the moment we join it, roughly in proportion to the strength of our forces in the unions and the general propagandistic power of our press.
. . .
LaFolette’s 1924 Campaign
We had an experience in 1924 in this country of a third party headed by Senator LaFollette, which was quite different from the Wallace movement in this respect—that it had a much broader base of support in the labor movement. Instead of merely one small sector of the trade union movement supporting it, as is the case with the Wallace party, LaFollette’s party was supported officially by the AFL and by the Railroad Brotherhoods, and even by the Socialist Party, which gave up its traditional independence. The Communist Party ran its own candidates and for the first time put itself on the national political map. The Socialist Party traded its independence for the privilege of going along with this bourgeois movement supported by the workers. They broke for the first time their traditional principle of no combinations with bourgeois parties and no support of bourgeois parties. That was an important stage in the degeneration of the American Socialist Party. They gave a finger to the LaFollette movement; eventually the bulk of the Social Democrats gave their whole hand to Roosevelt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
