Election morass shows need for Marxism
Excerpts from a
talk by Fred Goldstein
We would much rather discuss a mass strike struggle or the
storming of the barricades someplace or a great rebellion.
But the workers and oppressed are being engulfed by the
all-pervasive propaganda machine of the capitalists. They are
being forced to live through this election debacle day and
night.
You can turn on the TV at 3:00 in the morning and still
find the entire news apparatus buzzing with election experts,
poll takers, lawyers, professors and politicians. And since
our class is going through this, we as communists must take
it up, no matter how distasteful.
Indeed, nothing demonstrates the need for Marxist politics
so much as the task of threading our way through the morass
of this election struggle between the two camps of capitalist
pirates.
What makes it so difficult to find the correct orientation
is that we live in the land of opportunism. In school they
call the U.S. the land of opportunity. But it is really the
land of opportunism.
Why? Because U.S. imperialism has stolen so much wealth
from the oppressed peoples of the world that it has endless
money to throw crumbs to different sectors of the population
to keep them as contented slaves who abhor the idea of
breaking with the system. An essential part of breaking with
the system is asserting your political independence from
capitalism and its political machine.
The problem of opportunism in the movement is not new.
Marx and Engels fought it the 19th century and Lenin fought
it during the struggle for the socialist revolution in
czarist Russia.
In Lenin's famous book, "Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile
Disorder," written in 1920 and directed against the
ultra-left, one chapter is entitled, "In the Struggle Against
What Enemies Within the Working Class Movement Did Bolshevism
Grow Up and Become Strong and Steeled?"
He gives the following answer: "Firstly and principally,
in the struggle against opportunism, which in 1914 had
definitely grown into social-chauvinism, had definitely sided
with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Naturally, this
was the principal enemy of Bolshevism within the
working-class movement. It remains the principal enemy
internationally too. The Bolsheviks devoted, and continue to
devote, most attention to this enemy."
Communists in this country have the same problem. The
social democrats tell everyone that Bush represents the
right-wing danger and everyone should subordinate their
efforts to supporting Gore.
Many militant activists in the new movement, some of whom
identify with anarchism, simply wash their hands of the
entire issue. They offer no guidance at all in the struggle.
The Nader movement, on the other hand, has put an absolute
equal sign between the two parties in order to justify its
progressive campaign against them.
Neither of these positions is adequate for a working-class
party that wants to retain credibility in the struggle
against opportunism. We have been sympathetic to the new
movement that gravitated toward Nader, because he broke with
the two parties on the basis of their being in the pocket of
big business. We defended him against the reactionary
backlash by the Gore for ces. But while we showed our
sympathy, we also showed the monumental ideological problems
with his reformist program.
By totally disregarding the fact that the Republican Party
is generally to the right of the Democratic Party and is a
haven for ultra-racists, right-to-lifers, anti-lesbian, -gay,
-bi and -trans bigots, is rabidly anti-union and has a more
right-wing social base than the Democrats, Nader was utterly
insensitive to the progressive sections of the movement.
By disregarding the concerns of African Americans, women,
lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, and unionists, Nader made
it easier for the opportunists to line people up against him
and for Gore. Nader undermined his credibility and narrowed
his base.
For a working-class party, the task is to show that in
spite of the fact that the Republicans have a different
social base and are more to the right, both parties are
deadly enemies of the workers and the oppressed--somewhat
different enemies, but enemies nevertheless. In the present
struggle between Bush and Gore, two mainstream capitalist
politicians, the differences between the parties pale in
significance compared to their fundamental class
similarities.
Both parties are primarily political instruments of the
bosses to enforce capitalist exploitation, racism and
imperialist intervention around the world. They have a common
aim of keeping the masses chained to wage slavery and
oppression.
To back Gore against Bush is to surrender class
independence. The only gains the masses have ever made in
this country were through their independent struggle, no
matter which bourgeois party was in power.
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS
:: SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page