Sunday, June 21, 2009 10:51 AM

Fake Leftists and Lessons on The Matter of a Free Palestine

By Lil Joe

> I may have missed the point here. You mention, "intellectuals & self
> advertised radicals who are quite audible & wordy in opposition to
> Obama," but then you put forth a post that shows people who supported
> his election.

Was from Amiri Baraka attacking me and others who oppose the Democratic Party. The people whose photos &/or words I posted were not just supporters of Obama, but people who present themselves as revolutionary anti-capitalists, anarchists, communists and socialists who claim to side with workers against capitalists, and oppressed people against imperialism: West, Baraka, Chomsky, Tyner, Webb, Zinn ...

Cornell West presents himself as anti-capitalist and "non-Marxist socialist", but his public activities is as a Christian existentialist, who uses Martin Luther King Jr's appropriation of Buber to bridge to his brand of existentialism, in his discources moves approvingly through the reactionary side of existentialism, where he approvingly and with praise often quotes Kierkegaard, Shopenhauer, Schelling, Nietzche, Heidegger and so on, against Hegel, Feuerbach and Marx.

Moreover, in his opposition to the revolutionary side of Enlightenment philosophical epistemological projects, West as an American pragmatist attacks Locke, Kant, Hegel and Kautsky, and as an American embrace and praise pragmatism and in particular Emerson, William James, Charles Pierce, John Dewey &c., so does not present himself as a revolutionary as such. Not only does pragmatism, arising as it does from Humean skepticism and Berkeley's solipsism (which jibes with the individual self-centered existentialism) in opposition to epistemology and materialism in philosophy, but is in politics [particularly American politics!] pragmatism is by definition the philosophical justification for opportunism and centrism (a form of opportunism) which denounces anyone who takes a principled stand on issues, based on their weltanschauung and refuse to compromise those principles are branded as "extremists", "radicals", "dogmatic" and so on.

West points out that King was a socialist but rejected Marx's materialism and atheism. But, does not also point out that King regarded Hegel as his favorite and most influential philosopher - particularly regarding dialectics - which King and Marx had in common, or that King was in agreement with Marx's economic analysis of capitalist production and exploitation of the proletariat.

But, more importantly, as an American pragmatist and Negro activist, West sets all this theorizing aside - and instead, like most Americans in this bourgeois racial culture he safely resides in the pre-occupation with "race matters". He associates himself with the arch reactionary anti-communist, the Black racialist John Hope Franklin.

Although West claims to be a "non-Marxist socialist", it is the "non-Marxist", actually the "anti-Marxist" side of the equation is what stands out. I am not familiar with any of West's writings or speeches where he advocated the productive forces be transferred from the private property of the capitalist classes to the public property of the working classes, or even that the American working class and trade unions form a class party to win State power, by means of which to expropriate the capitalist class.

[Even Hitler's Nazis hoodwinked German workers into believing they were "non-Marxist socialists", though in reality were a political tool of the German industrial and finance capitalists!] West is the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is a faction in the Democratic Party, the liberal capitalist class party.

West is not in any revolutionary tradition, he never presented himself as an Anarchist, Marxist or Leninist communist or socialist. So he doesn't really betray revolutionary principles by campaigning for the capitalist class parties, whether Democrat or Republican, or any other one. West never advocated, and certainly never organized for a socialist revolution in America, "non-Marxist socialism" nor otherwise. Rather, he denounces "racism", "sexism", "homophobia", and advocates instead "social justice" (whatever that means) under existing capitalism, from the standpoint of race matters, democracy matters and pragmatism. It is therefore not inconsistent with this that he would endorse and campaign for "brother Obama" (i.e. the Democratic Party) to win the White House. Pragmatism is political opportunism.

Amiri Baraka, however doesn't present himself as a bourgeois intellection and "non-Marxist socialist", but as a proletarian revolutionary, a Marxist in the tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao - particularly, Mao. It was from Dimitrov and Mao's writings that Baraka called for a "united front" with the bourgeois partisans against "Republican Party 'fascism'".

Baraka compares the United States in 2008 to Germany in 1935, the Democratic Party and "progressives", and racial minority activists, to the German Communist Party and Social Democratic Labor Party on one side, fighting for 'democracy' and protection of minorities, and the Republican Party to the German Nazi Party, anti-Semites and fascism:

Obama & The Tragic Errors of The Weimar Republic
By Amiri Baraka
Jul 16, 2008, 15:04

The post World War I journey of Germany from an empire, which was overthrown, and then a democratic republic, and finally the overthrow of that republic and the emergence and domination of Hitler’s Nazi fascism, is important for us to understand. Because some of the facts of these years still apply to the contemporary United States.

With the withering Depression that had set in in the late 20’s in addition to Germany’s war losses, when the international stock market collapsed (U.S. Wall St.) in 1929, a worldwide Depression of staggering proportions set in. And it is this Depression and the rise and fall of governments in Germany that set the stage for the final takeover by Hitler and the fascists—and finally the beginning of World War II.

Although McCain’s adviser Gramm says this is a “mental recession,” unless he’s referring to himself and McCain, today’s depression in the U.S. is not just mental. We shd also factor in the outright theft of the last two elections, the general public bankruptcy of the Republican party, which has been playing and still are playing a “White card”. (The Democrats have not won the majority of White male voters since John Kennedy!)

There is the spreading foreclosure menace of the subprime (fraud ridden) mortgages, now at 6,000 foreclosures a day, the closing of the huge banking mortgage regime, Bear-Sterns. The Bush cabal has agreed to revalue Bear Stearns stocks so that the historically infamous speculator JPMorgan can get a better payday. No aid for the people losing their homes at terrifying rates. Today the government announced it had a new plan to save more banks. If there’s no recession why the plan to save “unthreatened” banks?

Suffice it to say there is a deepening Depression in the U.S., with the nation going from a surplus at the end of the Clinton regime to today’s deficit, much of it caused by the $10-billion-a-month war in Iraq. Even many straight-up backward Americans are convinced of the bold corruption that is the real cause of the war and spiraling gas prices since it is the oil swindlers who hold state power in the U.S. While they talk bad about the “Arabs,” the Bush group is clearly in bed with the Saudis, Arab Emirates, with Dubai now becoming a financial capital to compete with Wall St. and London.

There is no doubt that U.S. forces are losing in the Middle East, just as they got wasted in Viet Nam. The whole ugly scam of removing oil billions from Iraq ( all those contracts for privatization of Iraqi oil went to the big U.S. oilies) based on the 911 episode, the reality of which is still covered with crude lies. But now at scam’s end, with a raging Depression setting in and a war-incurred deficit climbing into the trillions, the stage is set for stunning rightward surge that will perhaps bring street fighting to the U.S. and a final toppling that will make the current shrinking of the dollar, .60 per Euro, seem mild. China already holds U.S. paper, the U.S. is China’s top debtor. IndyMac Bank has just failed in California.

So this is a time much like that in Germany, during the last phase of the Weimar Democratic Republic. Ostensibly a democratic republic, the Depression caused widespread unemployment and great public unrest. And as the curtain began to rise for fascist takeover, (See Brecht’s Berlin) the country, especially the large cities like Berlin, were inundated with pornography, sex crimes, business and political scandals and street fighting, usually between the rising fascists and the communists.

What brought the democratic era to an end was a split between the communists and the social democrats, i.e., the left and the near left and the liberals, which permitted Hitler’s National Socialists in a coalition with the conservatives and nationalists to win the election, even though the left-center coalition had more voters objectively. It was the split which allowed the right to consolidate power.

Recently in the U.S. presidential campaign we have seen two tendencies, the one to vilify and distort Obama from the right, e.g., the recent New Yorker cover described as “satirical” with Obama as a Muslim, his wife as a machine toting militant with an American flag in the fireplace and Osama bin laden in a portrait of honor on the wall. It is objectively a message from McCain, the U.S. Right and the Israelis.

But as well there is the tendency on the presumed left and the social democrats and people styling themselves “progressives” to attack Obama for moving to the right, thereby disappointing some very vocal would-be Obama voters. One woman publicized prominently in the NY Times said now she “hated him.” But as I have said repeatedly this is an imperialist country, with two imperialist parties and a media controlled directly by the 6/10ths of 1 percent of the people that own the land wealth factories, the means of production.

There is no way Obama is even in the presidential race condemning Israel or embracing Cuba. Not to know this is not to know where you are or where you have been for the last 40 years. But even with this clear motion to the center for the purposes of the general election, McCain is still a more backward and a more dangerous candidate and exactly the kind of right leaning militarist that would fit the paradigm for the weak chancellors during Weimar’s last throes that President Hindenburg removed and then appointed Hitler.

What Baraka fails to mention is that Germany was a capitalist country, economically and politically dominated by the industrial and finance capital classes, and the bureaucratic-military State was the instrument of its class rule.

As in every other bourgeois country: classes rule, parties govern. It was the operative of the German capitalists that selected the Nazis, and used Hitler to destroy the trade unions, and the Social Democratic and Communist Parties which were financially and socially based on these trade unions - the Nazis were financially based on finance and industrial capital contributions, had advocates in the Church hierarchy, and bourgeois intellectuals and professors on campus, such as Mary Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger, and capitalist newspapers and radio media.

Philosopher, Rector of the University of Frieburg from 1933 until 1934, member of the Nazi Party (see 'Heidegger and Nazism' by Victor Farias, Joseph Margolis, Tom Rockmore) citing his Nazi ties during the years 1933 to 1945, the French Occupation Authority ruled that Heidegger had been a "fellow traveller" with the Nazis and banned him from teaching in Germany.

Thus the bourgeois and lumpinproletarian masses that were politically and ideologically manipulated had material grounds, and who supported the Nazis were anti-communist, anti-socialist and anti-trade unionists, as well as anti-Semitic, this Party rested socially on the petty bourgeoisie, bureaucrats and the lumpinproletariat: these, and mainly the lumpinproletariat provided the troops for the street fighting - the Brown Shirts, Storm Troopers and then the foot soldiers in the armed forces that invaded and occupied the countries of Europe.

The Nazis only displaced the liberals and socialists as managers of the State. Wherever this army occupied, it attacked the trade unions and the Socialist and Communist Parties that were financially and socially based on those unions, and were those workers political representatives. Capitalists in the occupied countries welcomed the Nazi reaction and destruction of labor's organization powers and political representatives. The elements of the Resistance fighters inside the occupied countries were workers, comprised for the most parts of communists and anarchists and socialists, and these were the troops that comprised those practical united fronts with bourgeois intellectuals (e.g. Sartre) and Marxist writers with bourgeois nationalist politicians that also opposed the occupation. The political representatives of the big capitalists collaborated with the occupation State.

The modern executive of the bourgeois State manages the common affairs of state in the interests of capital, and this was true in Germany before and after the ascendancy of Hitler as the political personification of that State. The same bureaucratic hierarchy and offices/officers, and the same military structure and officer corps, the Nazis didn't change a thing.

The same of the bourgeois State in the United States in 1935 as in Germany 1935, and in Germany 2009 as in the US 2009. The industrial and finance capitalists are the most powerful, economically dominate classes and the State is the bureaucratic-military instrument of their class domination. However, unlike the German proletariat, the American workers unions have never organized political representation, there has never been a trade union based mass worker's party in government in the United States. The Democratic Party has never been a labor party based financially on trade unions, but originated as a Southern slave-owner's party, and then became a capitalist financed class party.

Baraka's comparison of the capital based Democratic Party to the German labor based Social Democratic and Communist parties is wrong, and to call for communists, socialists and anarchists to form a united front against the Republican Party, even if it was an historical incarnation of the German Nazi Party in American context and form, is absurd. The Democratic Party is an imperialist Party, which like the Nazi Party is an anti-communist party and a Party of conquest and occupation, the same as is the Republican Party.

Baraka also talks about a Black racial nationalist "united front" of Black socialists, communists, Anarchists and activists with the the 'black bourgeoisie' - i.e. Democratic Party politicians. He wants to swing this by comparing Black Americans as a "nation" to China and the Chinese Communist Party's United Front against Japan. He uses Mao's writings. Mao wrote, for instance in his call for a united front with the Kuomantang:

Mao: "Every Communist must grasp this truth, political power grows out the barrel of a gun:


Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions. There is the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler, and there is our patriotism. Communists must resolutely oppose the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler. The Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatists with regard to the wars being waged by their countries. To bring about the defeat of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler by every possible means is in the interests of the Japanese and the German people, and the more complete the defeat the better. This is what the Japanese and German Communists should be doing and what they are doing. For the wars launched by the Japanese aggressors and Hitler are harming their own people as well as the people of the world. China's case is different, because she is the victim of aggression. Chinese Communists must therefore combine patriotism with internationalism. We are at once internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is, "Fight to defend the motherland against the aggressors." For us defeatism is a crime and to strive for victory in the War of Resistance is an inescapable duty. For only by fighting in defence of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism. For this reason Communists must use their initiative to the full, march bravely and resolutely to the battle front of the war of national liberation and train their guns on the Japanese aggressors. For this reason, immediately after the Incident of September 18, 1931, our Party issued its call to resist the Japanese aggressors by a war of national defence, and later proposed a national united front against Japan, ordered the Red Army to reorganize as part of the anti-Japanese National Revolutionary Army and to march to the front, and instructed Party members to take their place in the forefront of the war and defend the motherland to the last drop of their blood. These are good patriotic actions and, far from running counter to internationalism, are its application in China. Only those who are politically muddle-headed or have ulterior motives talk nonsense about our having made a mistake and abandoned internationalism.

Mao distinguishes a national liberation movement from revolution: "a revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."

Baraka presents himself as a black racial nationalist and at the same time a Maoist, calling for a united front with the black bourgeoisie, as though he were Mao tse-Tung leading a Communist Party and Peasant army and Obama was Chaing as head of the Kuomantang and its army. The problem, is that the Black bourgeois politicians are not oppressed by US imperialism, but are Democrats, who in office or running for office are part and parcel of the imperialist State engaging in aggressions against and endorsing occupation of countries round the world.

Not only has the 2008-9 Democratic Party nothing in common with the 1930s-40s Chinese Communist Party, which united with the Kuomantang in a liberation war against Japanese imperialism, but the Democratic Party has in common with the government of 1930s-40s imperialist aggression, in common with the Japanese government that the Democratic Party is governing an imperialist State.

What Baraka is therefore advocating by supporting Black Democrats is not a united front against imperialism, as Mao did against Japanese imperialist aggression. Were the Japanese communists to have did what Baraka suggests, they would have found their way into the Japanese imperialist army to support the invasions of China, Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, &c.

Chomsky, on the other hand, is not a "non-Marxist socialist", and not a Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist or Maoist. Rather the opposite, he presents himself as an Anarchist in the revolutionary tradition of Joseph Proudhon, Micheal Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman ...

But, we shall see that Chomsky is no Anarchist.

This is what Bakunin wrote, defining Anarchism as 'socialism' and 'revolutionary collectivists' in opposition to Marxist labour parties, which he called 'authoritan communists' [which is supposed to be the basis for Chomsky's opposition to Lenin, Bolshevism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and Maoism]. Bakunin wrote:

It is at this point that a fundamental division arises between the socialists and revolutionary collectivists on the one hand and the authoritarian communists who support the absolute power of the State on the other. Their ultimate aim is identical. Both equally desire to create a new social order based first on the organization of collective labor, inevitably imposed upon each and all by the natural force of events, under conditions equal for all, and second, upon the collective ownership of the tools of production.

The difference is only that the communists imagine they can attain their goal by the development and organization of the political power of the working classes, and chiefly of the proletariat of the cities, aided by bourgeois radicalism. The revolutionary socialists, on the other hand, believe they can succeed only through the development and organization of the nonpolitical or antipolitical social power of the working classes in city and country, including all men of goodwill from the upper classes who break with their past and wish openly to join them and accept their revolutionary program in full.

This divergence leads to a difference in tactics. The communists believe it necessary to organize the workers forces in order to seize the political power of the State. The revolutionary socialists organize for the purpose of destroying - or, to put it more politely - liquidating the State.

In an Interview, Chomsky makes the same point of departure, even referencing Bakunin:

CHOMSKY: Bakunin's warnings about the Red bureaucracy that would institute the worst of all despotic governments were long before Lenin, and were directed against the followers of Mr. Marx. There were, in fact, followers of many different kinds; Pannekoek, Luxembourg, Mattick and others are very far from Lenin, and their views often converge with elements of anarcho-syndicalism. Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in Spain, in fact. There are continuities from Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities to Marxists who were harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism. Teodor Shanin's work in the past years on Marx's later attitudes towards peasant revolution is also relevant here. I'm far from being a Marx scholar, and wouldn't venture any serious judgement on which of these continuities reflects the 'real Marx,' if there even can be an answer to that question.
RBR: Recently, we obtained a copy of your own Notes on Anarchism (re-published last year by Discussion Bulletin in the USA). In this you mention the views of the early Marx, in particular his development of the idea of alienation under capitalism. Do you generally agree with this division in Marx's life and work - a young, more libertarian socialist but, in later years, a firm authoritarian?
CHOMSKY: The early Marx draws extensively from the milieu in which he lived, and one finds many similarities to the thinking that animated classical liberalism, aspects of the Enlightenment and French and German Romanticism. Again, I'm not enough of a Marx scholar to pretend to an authoritative judgement. My impression, for what it is worth, is that the early Marx was very much a figure of the late Enlightenment, and the later Marx was a highly authoritarian activist, and a critical analyst of capitalism, who had little to say about socialist alternatives. But those are impressions.

The Anarchists dispute with Marxian communism is that the latter advocates, and participates in the working class self-organization of itself into a class party, Labour and Socialist/Communist Parties the objective of which is to win the battle of democracy against the capitalist parties, the use of political struggle by the proletariat to become the ruling class, the State (revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat) by means of which to force the transfer of the productive forces from capitalist to public property.

Marx and Engels on behalf of the Communist League, in 1848 wrote in "The Communist Manifesto":

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

On behalf of the International Working-Men's Association, Marx wrote:

That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves, that the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule;

That the economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer of the means of labor — that is, the source of life — lies at the bottom of servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation, and political dependence;

That the economical emancipation of the working classes is therefore the great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinate as a means;

That all efforts aiming at the great end hitherto failed from the want of solidarity between the manifold divisions of labor in each country, and from the absence of a fraternal bond of union between the working classes of different countries;

That the emancipation of labor is neither a local nor a national, but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists, and depending for its solution on the concurrence, practical and theoretical, of the most advanced countries;

That the present revival of the working classes in the most industrious countries of Europe, while it raises a new hope, gives solemn warning against a relapse into the old errors, and calls for the immediate combination of the still disconnected movements;

For these reasons —

The International Working Men's Association has been founded.

It declares:

That all societies and individuals adhering to it will acknowledge truth, justice, and morality as the basis of their conduct toward each other and toward all men, without regard to color, creed, or nationality;

That it acknowledges no rights without duties, no duties without rights;

And, in this spirit, the following Rules have been drawn up.

1. This Association is established to afford a central medium of communication and co-operation between workingmen's societies existing in different countries and aiming at the same end; viz., the protection, advancement, and complete emancipation of the working classes.
2. The name of the society shall be "The International Working Men's Association."
3. There shall annually meet a General Working Men's Congress, consisting of delegates of the branches of the Association. The Congress will have to proclaim the common aspirations of the working class, take the measures required for the successful working of the International Association, and appoint the General Council of the society.
4. Each Congress appoints the time and place of meeting for the next Congress. The delegates assemble at the appointed time and place, without any special invitation. The General Council may, in case of need, change the place, but has no power to postpone the time of the General Council annually. The Congress appoints the seat and elects the members of the General Council annually. The General Council thus elected shall have power to add to the number of its members.
On its annual meetings, the General Congress shall receive a public account of the annual transactions of the General Council. The latter may, in case of emergency, convoke the General Congress before the regular yearly term.
5. The General Council shall consist of workingmen from the different countries represented in the International Association. It shall, from its own members, elect the officers necessary for the transaction of business, such as a treasurer, a general secretary, corresponding secretaries for the different countries, etc.
6. The General Council shall form an international agency between the different and local groups of the Association, so that the workingmen in one country be consistently informed of the movements of their class in every other country; that an inquiry into the social state of the different countries of Europe be made simultaneously, and under a common direction; that the questions of general interest mooted in one society be ventilated by all; and that when immediate practical steps should be needed — as, for instance, in case of international quarrels — the action of the associated societies be simultaneous and uniform. Whenever it seems opportune, the General Council shall take the initiative of proposals to be laid before the different national or local societies. To facilitate the communications, the General Council shall publish periodical reports.
7. Since the success of the workingmen's movement in each country cannot be secured but by the power of union and combination, while, on the other hand, the usefulness of the International General Council must greatly depend on the circumstance whether it has to deal with a few national centres of workingmen's associations, or with a great number of small and disconnected local societies — the members of the International Association shall use their utmost efforts to combine the disconnected workingmen's societies of their respective countries into national bodies, represented by central national organs. It is self-understood, however, that the appliance of this rule will depend upon the peculiar laws of each country, and that, apart from legal obstacles, no independent local society shall be precluded from corresponding directly with the General Council.
8. Every section has the right to appoint its own secretary corresponding directly with the General Council.
9. Everybody who acknowledges and defends the principles of the International Working Men's Association is eligible to become a member. Every branch is responsible for the integrity of the members it admits.
10. Each member of the International Association, on removing his domicile from one country to another, will receive the fraternal support of the Associated Working Men.
11. While united in a perpetual bond of fraternal co-operation, the workingmen's societies joining the International Association will preserve their existent organizations intact.
12. The present Rules may be revised by each Congress, provided that two-thirds of the delegates present are in favor of such revision.
13. Everything not provided for in the present Rules will be supplied by special Regulations, subject to the revision of every Congress.

The Anarchists position themselves ideologically to the Left of Marxists, and denounce Marxists and Leninists, for advocating and participating in the self-organization of the working class into political parties to win State power at the national level, to expropriate the productive forces by that State power.

The Anarchists, Bukanin and Chomsky included, opposed to all political party formations as "authoritarian", including worker's class parties, and oppose all State formations, including worker's States (revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat) and use of force in expropriating the productive forces from the capitalist exploiters. Chomsky never misses an opportunity to denounce Lenin and the Bolshevik led Russian Revolution and Civl War victory over the landlord's Cadets and foreign imperialist invaders, claiming the Leninist-Bolsheviks were "authoritan".

If Chomsky is an Anarchist, and as such oppose worker's parties forming and winning power, saying that this will make the workers as a party as evil and authoritan as the capitalists parties and States - e.g. the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States, then what's up with Chomsky campaigning for the Democratic Party to put representatives of capital in political power? More importantly, how is it that the Anarchists and Left in the US allow him to get away with it.

Endorsing/ campaigning for Obama as 'lesser evil' isn't the first time Chomsky betrayed Anarchist principles of opposition to government, parties and politics. It wasn't because Obama is Black, either. It also endorsed/campaigned for Kerry four years prior. There is a letter:

A Question of Intent: The Chomsky Interviews
Reza Fiyouzat
CovertAction Quarterly, January, 2005
Dear Editors,
Post-Holiday Season Greetings from an American voter living in Japan! I hope this note finds you well and in good health.

I am writing to address a puzzling silence taken on by, it seems, just about everybody in the U.S. who writes on behalf of the downtrodden and the meek: i.e. the left. The silence is of a peculiar kind; of the naked emperor kind.

The puzzling silence is with regard to Chomsky’s support for John Kerry during the elections that we suffered this past year.

The silence is so huge and disconcerting that one may be forgiven for forgetting that the good professor did in fact advocate such a position. So, why the silence?

To take one extremely painful example, one cannot but bring to attention an interview of Junaid Alam’s with Chomsky (Civilization versus Barbarism: An Interview with Noam Chomsky,, December 23, 2004), in which not a single word is exchanged regarding this. Not even a softly couched question. Instead, our good friend, much like a polite career journalist interviewing a state functionary on the mainstream media, stayed way clear of any embarrassing topics, handing the professor one soft question after another, all to do with things that we (i.e. leftists who constitute the entirety of the audience for Mr. Alam or Chomsky) have already heard and read a good million times.

Anybody who has ever heard Chomsky, read any of his writings or heard countless other interviews with him, knows most or all he says in this interview. So, why not be a little more imaginative and relevant? Here is a perfect opportunity for some honest reflection on, and/or recapitulation of an advocated position. After all, this past election was characterized by the good professor and numerous others who advised us to vote for Kerry as “the most important election of our lives.”

It is therefore not only reasonable but politically necessary to ask this prominent mind-shaper of the U.S. left to comment about a very historical position taken during such a pivotal election in recent history. Especially in view of the fact that the Democratic Party USA, on top of all the war-mongering rhetoric loudly espoused by Kerry, was engaging in what Ralph Nader has characterized as: “Political bigotry, constitutional crimes, [and] violation of our [campaign’s] civil liberties.”

Instead of spending their time and energy truly organizing their own rank and file and energizing and inspiring them, Democrats not only acted and behaved as right wingers that they are in relation to the Iraq war, but also actively changed the facts on the U.S. political map to the detriment of true left by silencing further their already-tiny electoral voice.

Was it not time for some hard questions by the interviewer, Mr. Alam, whose Left Hook website was one of the louder billboards for exposing (rightly) the pitfalls of the Anybody-But-Bush (ABB) position throughout the election year, and who did not say a word regarding Chomsky’s stance back then? Maybe the good professor, in retrospect and with the help of the vast wisdom that he does have, can shed some light on the reasons for the political advocacy he committed during this last election. If it had been a matter of quiet personal choice, one could look the other way. But, as it is, Chomsky by virtue of his public defense of ABB church was making a public recommendation, therefore acting politically and maybe Mr. Alam could have learned something new by questioning this political act (as well as relaying the learning).

The entire episode is now treated in silence, which ironically enough, is extremely patronizing both toward us and Chomsky. As a result, no lessons are learned, and we are implicitly encouraged to “move on” and pretend like it was a momentary personal failing.

During this past election year, I for one (as a socialist from the Middle East) watched in horror as one after another of the so-called “leftist icons” lined up and said: Vote for Kerry (who, incidentally, wants more war-mongering in the Middle East)! Am I the only person totally outraged here? Are we even paying attention to what we say and write any more? Why no outrage or any calling on Chomsky to explain himself, much like, for example, Professor James Petras called to our attention the Portuguese writer and Nobel laureate Jose Saramago’s wayward address in Colombia, in which Mr. Saramago failed to criticize the overtly terrorist acts of official armed gangs headed by President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, but went out of his way to characterize the tactics used by revolutionary organizations like National Liberation Army (ELN) as terrorist-like (Counterpunch, December 22, 2004).

Similarly, the same as candidate Kerry, candidate Obama was quite clear on his position on the Middle East: non-recognition of Hamas, rearming and continued funding for Israel, retention of forces in and near Iraq to keep quisling 'government' in place, redeployment and thousands more troops in Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan ... continued sanctions on Palestine, Syria, Sudan and Iran, to force the governments of those countries capitulation to US/Israeli domination of the oil region.

There is the saying: "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!". When Chomsky campaigned for the Democratic Party in 2004, ostensibly campaigning for Kerry against Bush as individuals, some were confused and thought he was making a mistake. But the repetition of this campaign for Democrats in 2008, ostensibly in support of the individual Obama against the individual McCain, the truth is self evident: it isn't these individuals that Chomsky opposes on one side and support on the other, but that Chomsky is committed to the Democratic Party and its hold on State power.

Another saying, in contrast to the hypocrits "do as I say and not as I do", is the saying that "you are what you do!". The only parties that Chomsky consistently attacks are Leninist, communist and socialist worker's party, which he does in the name of "Anarchism". Chomsky is no Anarchist, and by campaigning for the Democratic Party to have State power, shows he is no Micheal Bakunin.

Bukanin wrote [ibid.]:

"The difference is only that the communists [Marxists] imagine they can attain their goal by the development and organization of the political power of the working classes, and chiefly of the proletariat of the cities, aided by bourgeois radicalism. The revolutionary socialists [Anarchists], on the other hand, believe they can succeed only through the development and organization of the nonpolitical or antipolitical social power of the working classes in city and country, including all men of goodwill from the upper classes who break with their past and wish openly to join them and accept their revolutionary program in full.

"This divergence leads to a difference in tactics. The communists [Marxists] believe it necessary to organize the workers forces in order to seize the political power of the State. The revolutionary socialists [Anarchists] organize for the purpose of destroying - or, to put it more politely - liquidating the State."

Chomsky is opposed to 'the State' in theory, only when it is an issue of the worker's state - establishing by proletarian parties the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat by winning the battle of democracy against bourgeois parties.

Chomsky's enemies are the revolutionary legacies of Marx and Lenin, his opposition to worker's self-organization into national political parties struggling for power, but by campaigning for Kerry and Obama he demonstrates his partisanship of the Democratic Party, his commitment to the capitalist economic dictatorship prolitically represented by the State, governed by capitalist class parties, specifically the Democratic Party.

The bureaucratic-military State machine is an instrument of class power - the most powerful, economically dominate class in the United States is the capitalist owners of the productive forces and finance capital. Parties only manage the State: classes rule, parties govern. The executive of the federal state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the American capitalist class as a whole. The individuals who successively hold the office of president do not dictate State power, but is its instrument and its face as its demogogic personification.

In the United States, there isn't even a national [federal] Labor Party, so workers and trade unionists don't even have a single seat in the House of Representatives, let alone in Senate, Presidential Cabinet, or a seat on any Judicial bench. Through the Democratic and Republican Party the American State is completely governed by political representatives of the capitalist class: every local, city, county, state and federal office. This is why the Democratic Party, as well as the Republican Party is the class enemy of the American [and international!] working classes [and toiling masses] and why the American and international working classes need the American workers to organize themselves into a class party to win the battle of denocracy against those two capitalist class parties.

Chomsky is used by the American ruling classes and the Democratic Party to denounce Marxism and Leninism and the self-organization of the proletariat, at rallies and on television and in interviews, in the name of Anarchism. He not only hoodwinks the Anarchist revolutionaries, but the "American left" trade unionists and activists, and "minorities" as well into following his lead into the Democratic Party. In election campaign seasons Chomsky, along with other fake revolutionaries frighten the left about Republican Party presidential candidates being 'fascists', and correspondingly promote pragmatic political opportunism and by this demogogy lead these duped activists into voting boothes, voting for the Democratic Party to govern the capitalist State.

Lenin addresses the troops, May 5, 1920 with Trotsky in foreground.

Whereas Chomsky the fake Anarchist is a real anti-communist, Jarvis Tyner is a lifelong member and leader of the Communist Party USA, which consider itself the living continuity of the revolutionary writings and activities of Marx and Engels, the Communist League and the International Working Men's Association, and of Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution the objective of which was to displace the landlord-capitalist state by a revolutionary worker's and peasants state. Lenin argued the central necessity for a workers revolutionary party to fight the landlords politicians and capitalist class parties and government.

In What Is To Be Done? Lenin wrote in 1903:

Revolutionary Social-Democracy has always included the struggle for reforms as part of its activities. But it utilises “economic” agitation for the purpose of presenting to the government, not only demands for all sorts of measures, but also (and primarily) the demand that it cease to be an autocratic government. Moreover, it considers it its duty to present this demand to the government on the basis, not of the economic struggle alone, but of all manifestations in general of public and political life. In a word, it subordinates the struggle for reforms, as the part to the whole, to the revolutionary struggle for freedom and for socialism. ...

As for calling the masses to action, that will come of itself as soon as energetic political agitation, live and striking exposures come into play. To catch some criminal red-handed and immediately to brand him publicly in all places is of itself far more effective than any number of “calls”; the effect very often is such as will make it impossible to tell exactly who it was that “called” upon the masses and who suggested this or that plan of demonstration, etc. Calls for action, not in the general, but in the concrete, sense of the term can be made only at the place of action; only those who themselves go into action, and do so immediately, can sound such calls. Our business as Social-Democratic publicists is to deepen, expand, and intensify political exposures and political agitation. ...

I will never tire of repeating that demagogues are the worst enemies of the working class. The worst enemies, because they arouse base instincts in the masses, because the unenlightened worker is unable to recognise his enemies in men who represent themselves, and sometimes sincerely so, as his friends. The worst enemies, because in the period of disunity and vacillation, when our movement is just beginning to take shape, nothing is easier than to employ demagogic methods to mislead the masses, who can realise their error only later by bitter experience. ...

As I have stated repeatedly, by “wise men”, in connection with organisation, I mean professional revolutionaries, irrespective of whether they have developed from among students or working men. I assert: (1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organisation of leaders maintaining continuity; (2) that the broader the popular mass drawn spontaneously into the struggle, which forms the basis of the movement and participates in it, the more urgent the need for such an organisation, and the more solid this organisation must be (for it is much easier for all sorts of demagogues to side-track the more backward sections of the masses); (3) that such an organisation must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; (4) that in an autocratic state, the more we confine the membership of such an organisation to people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to unearth the organisation; and (5) the greater will be the number of people from the working class and from the other social classes who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it.

Lenin was clear that the task of the Communist party is to develop political independence of the working class and ideological clarity of it in contrast to capitalist class parties. The way this is to be done is by having a Party press, a newspaper and journals with articles provoking critical thinking that advance revolutionary theory -"without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement" (wrote Lenin) - and class consciousness, and to present political news including exposure of the real nature of capitalist exploitation and abuse, the role of the State as an instrument of class rule against the proletariat and toiling classes, and of the exposure of hypocritical demagoguery of bourgeois politicians and government ministers.

The Communist Party U.S.A. (CPUSA) claims to be the continuity in the United States of the Leninist Bolshevik Party's revolutionary theory and policy. Yet, by personalizing class politics, defining the Democratic Party and the Republican Party by individuals, demogogues and personalities rather than by these parties respective and joint capitalist class partisanship, the CPUSA, the same as DSOA, are supporters of the Democratic Party - during election cycles serve the capitalist class by posing "Marxists" &/or "Leninists" to rally the ignorant American workers and left activists to campaign for the Democratic Party.

This is the way the CPUSA justified on pragmatic opportunist and racial grounds its endorsement of and campaign for the Democratic Party, ostensibly in support of the individual Obama against the individual McCain:

Author: PWW/NM Editorial Board
First published 07/15/2008 14:19 by {article_topic_desc}

Barack Obama is not a left candidate. This fact has seemingly surprised a number of progressive people who are bemoaning Obama’s “shift to the center.” (Right-wingers are happy to join them, suggesting Obama is a “flip-flopper.”) It’s sad that some who seek progressive change are missing the forest for the trees. But they will not dampen the wide and deep enthusiasm for blocking a third Bush term represented by John McCain, or for bringing Obama by a landslide into the White House with a large Democratic congressional majority.

A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.

This diverse movement combines a variety of political currents and aims in a working coalition that is crucial to social progress at this point. At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view.

Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”

If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.

The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.

One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.

Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.

All this demogogic clap trap about "evil", "racism" and "progressive politics": "A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda" - was nothing but subterfuge to hide its actual behavior of serving the capitalist class by campaigning for the Democratic Party, as there are really only two major classes in America: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

"Peoples" is not an economic category, and there is therefore no such thing as "multiclass" or "peoples struggle", it was by these phrases and slogans like "eyes on the prize" that the CPUSA on behalf of the capitalist class Democratic Party argued for the American workers to cease fighting for a Labor Party and subordinate their class interests to the factions of the capitalist class represented by the Democratic Party.

During its campaign to win executive office, the Democratic Party and its candidate, Barack Obama, claimed that were Obama to win, it would deliver to 'the American people' prizes: from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street. This being echoed by the CPUSA above.

"If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term. The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward. One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November."

This was the demogogic basis that West, Baraka, Chomsky, Zinn, and others reduced class politics to individual personality contests and a fake distinction of "progressive" vis-a-vis verses "ultra-right". I say fake distinction between Obama's policies and McCains, and between "progressive" vis-a-vis verses "ultra-right", because once in office Obama and the Democrats have followed the exact policies of what they said were those of the Republicans and McCain of putting "Wall Street before Main Street", lack of health care universal programs, and expanding the war. The Obama administration and the Democratic Party, if these policies constitute the "ultra-right", are behind their claim of being "progressive" actually themselves ultra-right by dolling out trillions of dollars to banks while workers houses are being confiscated by foreclosures, and hundreds of billions to industrial Auto-capitalists, as workers are being fired, and plants closed while government approves bankruptcies to end previously agreed upon union contracts. Universal health care (single payer health insurance) has been deleted into trash the bin. Tens of thousands more troops are being sent to kill and be killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and instead of peace the war is expanded into Pakistan.

So what was up with all that bullshit about "lesser of two evils" coming from? It was a scam. It was, and always is in the interests of the American capitalist class as a whole to have Democrats presented by trade union bureaucrats, "progressives" on the television and radio, racial nationalists calling for minorities to form 'united fronts' against Republican 'fascists'/'racists', i.e. in support of Democrats, and using official left individuals and parties, such as West, Baraka, Chomsky, Tyner and Zinn, the DSOA and CPUSA to promote the Democratic Party by presenting Party candidate individuals, rather than Party functionaries, in personality contests with Republicans, as the 'lesser evil'.

This is why, not just you but many others who endorse Obama do so in this language, Terry:

> I may have missed the point here. You mention, "intellectuals & self
> advertised radicals who are quite audible & wordy in opposition to
> Obama," but then you put forth a post that shows people who supported
> his election.
> But, beyond that, I'm still not understanding what you would have had
> people do - given the choice between McCain and Obama.
> Again, the masses of people, and particularly people of color and
> working folk were either going to vote for one or the other of those
> two. So, my question is simply what would you have seen as a viable
> option.

I am not a pragmatist. Moreover, from the standpoint of the materialist conception of history and class struggle politics, even if I were a pragmatist I would recognize the Democratic Party, as well as the Republican Party as representing but different political factions of the same capitalist class. This is what is meant by "by-partisanship". Obama is not inviting the DSOA or CPUSA into the cabinet to form a coaition government, but the Republican Party into it as "by-partisanship".

That classes rule, while parties govern is proved by the Democratic Party policies in Congress, concerning the Labor Union rights to organize campaign (The Employee Free Choice Act) being set aside if not opposed, the trashing of universal health care and voting billions more to expand the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, aid to Israel and resolutions against Iran, sanctions on and denounciations of the Hamas elected government in Palestine and endorsing flawed elections in Lebanon. Obama as president is but the mouthpiece and grinning face of American capitalist and imperialist interests.

When one regurgitate the sham of lesser evil pragmatism as American working classes and poor being given the choice between McCain and Obama, the 'choice' is illusory because the differences are superficial: "the innessential masqueraded as essential" (Hegel).

I do not endorse individuals but parties based on class interests, what in the United States is a Labor Party based financially on the trade unions and socially on the class as a whole. Only then will there be a choice, between workers party and capitalist parties.

When you write: "Again, the masses of people, and particularly people of color and working folk were either going to vote for one or the other of those two. So, my question is simply what would you have seen as a viable option?" I cannot answer that question because I do not share the pragmatic and metaphysical [lesser evil] and color politics premises inherent in the set-up. Let me put the question to you: what difference do you think it makes to the Pakistani families whose homes and villages were ordered bombed by Obama rather than McCain? There is a reported massacre of innocent civilians, including women and children in US bombed villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because you endorse Obama - even now - do you not share the political responsibility for those massacres?

> If you believe there was another candidate who had even the slightest > potential of winning election to the Presidency given what the masses of > people were consuming, please tell me who.

I do not tell people who to vote for. I argue with you and workers generally to get out of the ideological traps of pragmatism and politics of the individual, learn universal critical thinking epistemology by participating in class struggle politics to build a Labor Party here, in solidarity with workers and toilers the world over, and with resistance and liberation movements in Middle Asia. When you and they have a Labor Party based in these perspectives, mediated by critical thinking you and they will decide for yourselves to vote in your individual-class and human interests, and the era of political pundits, and presidential endorsers will have ended.

The reason that I am so much of a hell raiser against West, Baraka, Chomsky,Tyner and Zinn is because they are, objectively, agents of the capitalist class in the working class, retarding the workers movement to develop their own class party through fighting the Democratic Party, as well as the Republican Party. They retard the development of the Labor Party by promoting pragmatic lesser evilism of politics of the individual.

In election cycle the class-conscious party building workers are isolated on the basis of pragmatism: "doing the best with what we have" - "a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush" - "better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" &c., is the demogogic clap trap regurgitated every election cycle by people who otherwise masquerade as revolutionary "non-Marxist socialists", "Anarchists", "Maoists", Leninists", "Communists" and Socialists".

Agents of the Democratic Party, and therefore of the capitalist class, by pushing pragmatic political opportunism in the left and labor circles they influence, those who follow them will remain ideological slaves of the Democratic Party's election cycles, and will never break to form an American Labor Party.

American trade unionists fighting to build their own class party - the Labor Party USA - see: Also see:

So long as these agents of the Democratic Party are not challenged and exposed, they will return every election cycle and preach pragmatic opposition to Republican Party 'fascism', thus keeping American workers the tail of the Democratic Party, and the trade unionist in the Democratic Party will continue to present the Democrat candidates with the free labor of foot soldier campaigns, only to be sold out when the candidate's in office, saying the office holder has to be "pragmatic".

Also join socialists and communist revolutionaries discussions at:

Lil Joe

On 6/19/09, Terry wrote:
> I apologize for being so rude in not getting back to this. I am
> perpetually overwhelmed.
> I may have missed the point here. You mention, "intellectuals & self
> advertised radicals who are quite audible & wordy in opposition to
> Obama," but then you put forth a post that shows people who supported
> his election.
> But, beyond that, I'm still not understanding what you would have had
> people do - given the choice between McCain and Obama.
> Again, the masses of people, and particularly people of color and
> working folk were either going to vote for one or the other of those
> two. So, my question is simply what would you have seen as a viable
> option.
> If you believe there was another candidate who had even the slightest
> potential of winning election to the Presidency given what the masses of
> people were consuming, please tell me who.
> There is not a lot of difference between Mccain and Obama, but the
> extent that there is means a lot of people will stay alive in the next
> eight years who likely wouldn't under a McCain regime.
> Thanks Lil Joe,
> Terry
> --- In, Lil Joe wrote:
> >
> >

What troubled me most during the campaign was how he threw Reverend Wright under the bus after that historic speech in Philadelphia about how he couldn’t abandon him any more than his White grandmother. Since I agreed with much of what Reverend Wright had to say, that had me wondering whether Obama would even want my endorsement, if I were famous, or that of any celebrity who shared my left of center leanings. ... It was interesting because the Obama surrogates had to be OK’d by the national headquarters in Chicago. And they said ‘no’ to most of the Black folks who were suggested. Yet, when my name came up to speak in Ohio, they said ‘yes,’ according to one Black brother who was on staff there. He was surprised, after all the stuff he’d heard me saying. When he asked why I’d been approved, they told him, ‘We really believe, that, deep down, brother West really loves Obama. He just speaks his mind. And when he speaks his mind, he actually brings more people.’ And, of course, they’re interested in votes. ‘He brings more credibility, even though Barack knows he’s going to be critiqued when brother West’s there. But he’s also going to get his support because he criticizes in such a way that he’s not going to be trashing our candidate, because he really loves him.’ And sho’ nuff, I was invited to Ohio in October by the campaign, whereas there were a number of other folks they rejected, including some members of the Congressional Black Caucus. - Cornell West

> It was either going to be McCain or it was going to be Obama. That is
> the reality.

We certainly know the animals of the right, the US Reich, the Foxes and Klan in Civilian clothes, e.g., O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh &c and certainly a coon or two Tavis & Andy, some people even came up with the slogan Strangle Rangel. Happily w/the departure of Bonnie & Clyde more of these Negro retainers will replace their " HillJig" buttons with the shit eating grin of exposed Toms as they try to ease painlessly into at least the margin of the masses who support Obama .

But I'm talking about another substantial pimple of so disant, dare I say, intellectuals & self advertised radicals who are quite audible & wordy in opposition to Obama. ...
Amiri Baraka

Noam Chomsky Endorses Obama

By Ben Cohen
Noam Chomsky has long been a critic of the false choice presented to voters, maintaining that the two parties are essentially the same. But in Chomsky's opinion, John McCain represents such an extreme vision for America that he is coming out for Barack Obama.

"I would suggest not voting for McCain which means voting for Obama" Chomsky told The Real News. Chomsky believes that a continuation of Bush style policies would have a significant impact on the public, and although both candidates are well to the right of the population in terms of actual policy 'There is nothing wrong with picking the lesser of two evils".

Communist Party USA leaders – including one who spoke with tears
in his eyes – held a confab at which they celebrated the election of
Barack Obama as "the biggest political realignment since the
1930s" and urged the immediate implementation of socialist

The People's Weekly World, a weekly newspaper affiliated with the
Communist Party USA, or CPUSA, reported on a meeting last week
of top party leaders who celebrated Obama's election and
announced a call to action to "carry out the election mandate,
including immediate government steps to help Americans hit by the
economic crisis and bringing peace to Iraq and Afghanistan."

CPUSA National Chairman Sam Webb noted the election represented
"a necessary first step toward a new society."

Published on Saturday, November 8, 2008 by
Obama's Historic Victory

by Howard Zinn
Those of us on the Left who have criticized Obama, as I have, for his failure to take bold positions
on the war and on the economy, must join the exultation of those Americans, black and white,
who shouted and wept Tuesday night as they were informed that Barack Obama had won the
presidential election. It is truly a historic moment, that a black man will lead our country.
The enthusiasm of the young, black and white, the hopes of their elders, cannot simply be ignored.


These statements by would be socialists, Anarchists and communists are working for capitalist political domination of US politics by ignoring the fight for the US Labor Party, and instead advocating that American working class citizens only 'choice' in the election was to by metaphysical inhering categorical imperative compelled to act on behalf of US imperialism and its colonial Zionist State, to by voting for one or the other imperialist Party's presidential candidate as a pragmatic decision for the 'lesser evil'. By voting for one vs the other was to thereby give popular authorization [legitimacy] to the power of the 'winner' to be qua an elected personification of the bureaucratic-military State qua "Commander and Chief", of the US Armed Forces - to determine whether it would be McCain or Obama who would arm and finance the Israeli massacre of Palestinians: that pragmatism was not in the interest of the American proletariat, and certainly not of the Palestinians?

The problem in America is the myth of American exceptionalism: that the United States is a society based on "free trade", "upward mobility" and "voting citizens" is a classless "democracy."

American bourgeois cultural domination suppresses knowledge among American workers of the universality of the capitalist mode of production and appropriation with corresponding relations of production, thus the division of society into economic classes - capitalists whose ownership of the means of production and distribution enables its mode of appropriation of labor power by purchase, whereby they own that labor power and its products - nor do these American wage workers know of themselves proletarians, who because they possess no means of production of their own are by survival circumstances compelled to sell their labor power to the capitalist owners of those productive forces for wages, by which they purchase the products of this proletarian labor from the capitalist class. Neither do American wage workers know the capitalist mode of production and appropriation is but one of many historical economic epochs, and that in each of them the class in possession of the productive forces dominate those without, both economically in relations of production and politically as class power based on this possession and relations of production. Whether the form of government that best suits the interests of this ruling class is monarchy or tyranny, aristocracy or oligarchy, timocracy or democracy that it is in each case, or mix of these forms, the possessor classes that are the most powerful, politically dominate classes.

The ideas of the ruling class of an epoch are the ruling ideas of kingdom or nation characteristic of the epoch, the justification of the mode of production and appropriations relations of production, classes and political institutions to which the working classes and toiling masses are subjected. Thus, the existence of revolutionary ideas presupposes the emergence of a revolutionary class challenging the existing mode of production and appropriation, relations of production, class and political structures. The European proletariat has a history of class-conscious revolutionary class struggle, in opposition to the landed and capitalist classes, thus those workers have their own class parties and develop revolutionary ideology in the ideological struggles against the domination of bourgeois culture and ideology.

This is not so in the United States, that is not just yet, because the American proletariat doesn't even know or regard itself as a proletariat, and regard proletarian class politics and socialist ideology as something that are foreign. In America, they have internalized the belief, that this nation is unique in history, a Christian nation and a 'democracy', a 'free country' that is 'the envy of the world' .

Democracy is of course an illusory community of interest in that the actual bureaucratic-military State is hidden, and government appears to be "majority rule". This illusion is predicated upon an ahistorical concept of "social contract". It is asserted that in their 'original state of nature' that individuals were living in fear in a brutal condition of war of all against all (bellum omnium contra omnes): each wanting to preserver himself passes his natural right to take from and kill anyone and everyone.

Thus, that to escape this jungle of natural right against natural right to take from and kill each other, they agree to embark upon a 'political pact', or 'social contract' in which each individual cede this right to take and kill to a single person, who alone is authorized to possess weapons and the right to kill. This personification of authority is the ruler of the State, thus his function is to maintain peace by imposing order through fear.

Thus according to Hobbes the Commonwealth is supposed to have emerged from a "war of all against all". Paleoanthropology, archeology and cultural anthropology proved this asserted 'state of nature' is a myth: it never existed. Yet, the myth of a primal "government by consent of the governed" prevail: John Locke's Second Essay on Government, the US Declaration of Independence, and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

It has been shown scientifically that hominidea- hominids- human beings species have always been gregarious and existed in communities. The Leviathan/ State power that rises above the human community, is not the result of some primal ceding of the natural right to and power of killing each other by authorizing a ruling individual or clique this right of power to kill to maintain order, as thereby ending of war of all against all,but on the contrary the evolutionary development of the productive forces and corresponding divisions of labor result in commerce and subsequent class formations: the most powerful, economically dominate classes are the most powerful, politically dominate classes.

The government of the United States originated as an Oligarchy in the North and Timocracy in the South - in the Continental Congress the Articles of Confederation to the Federal Constitutional Republic: citizens with the rights to vote and hold office were restricted to wealthy males and property holders. Originally, both the North, where capitalist commodity production was based on wage labor and South, where capitalist commodity production was based on agricultural slave labor, women, propertyless proletarians and yoeman farmers, as well as Slaves were excluded from citizenship: could not vote. This was a Liviathan State, alright, but anything but a primal contract of "government by consent of the governed".

Rather, only property owning classes represented those who participated in citizenship, and did so in their own interests, notwithstanding the myth that those office holders claimed to represent the excluded women, as well as the working classes, toiling masses and slaves. The "original intent" of the 'founding fathers' who were the political representatives of the possessing classes who wrote the Constitution, was to make these exclusions legal and permanent. Charles A. Beard:

It took yeoman and proletarian rebellions to force Congress to write and authorize the First ten Amendments to this Constitution. The vague rhetoric and demogogic subterfuge in the Declaration of Independence about inalienable rights to life, liberity and pursuit of happiness, and the slogan 'government by consent of the governed', which were excluded from the original Constitution in any case, are superseded by the concrete formulation of the Bill of Rights - the First Ten Amendments to that Constitution that were forced into it by excluded rebellious masses. It is not in the Declaration of Independence but in the Bill of Rights where it is articulated the freedoms of religion (seperation of state and church) of speech, the press, of assembly, right of petition, jury of peers, protection from standing army, right to bear arms and so on. See:

The Bill of Rights was restrictive, however. Citizenship was granted to citizens without property qualification until 1824, and then was restricted to all free 'white men' qua citizenship (with the exception of 6 states), but this enfranchisement still excluding women, slaves and Negroes. It took a War Between the States, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 14th, 15th 16th and 19th Amendments to achieve this, and the Voting Rights and Civil Rights legislation's signed into law to finally make these happen and women didn't win the right of voting citizenship until 1920 by the ratification of the 19th amemdment.

Even so, although blacks and white women now vote and hold office, in the House of Representatives and Senate, a black President and integrated cabinet of both genders, and set on the judiciary, still these are members of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, as there is no worker's party in America and no labor held seats in government.

Throughout US history till now, the ruling classes monopoly on political power remained in effect, and so continues an oligarchy, in that practical economic resources excludes and only include representatives in the Senate, Presidency and their determination of acceptance or rejection appointments/advised-consent seats on the federal judiciary and Supreme Court. Moreover, without ever possessing a class party of their own, only the factions of capitalists represented by their political parties have ever had seats in the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Presidential Administration, the Judiciary or the military officer corps.

The still rigged money access oligarchic Senate continues to alone have the Constitutional authority given power to determine the selection of the nominated members of President's Cabinet posts, members for the federal courts, Supreme Court, heads of the Federal Reserve System, Ambassadors, and so on are excluded from public influence, and even the popular assembly [House of Representatives] and its members are excluded from these Senatorial determinations. It moreover is the Electoral College, or by intervention of partisan Supreme Court Justices, which bodies have actual power of authority to select Presidents, not 'popular votes'.

Cornell West, Amiri Baraka, Jarvis Tyner, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky et al know all this. So, why did these icons of the "anti-racism" networks, the Black nationalist, 'communist', 'progressive' and 'libertarian anarchist' talk and radio circuit 'stars' converge [among others] to campaign for the Democrats by presenting Obama as the 'lesser of the two evils': to spread the illusion of "American democracy": by campaigning for Obama. More importantly, based on what these reputed Jacksnapes present themselves: "Black" &/or "progressive" duh: "socialists", "anarchists" and revolutionaries, from their respective ego- derived, or paid points of view, is to show that these characters, by endorsing US imperialism qua Obama Presidency, justify US imperialist/ Zionist policy.

The issue is that US citizens voting thus ideologically justify and politically sustain policies of a 'Biblical right' for European and Americans foreigners to continue to relocate to Palestine and deny Palestinians right of return to their family's brutal derived [taken] of expropriated lands, and to denounce the Palestinian Resistance as 'terrorists'? Obama, the same as McCain, and all the Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives, the Senate and the President's Cabinet together with them, are opposed to recognizing the legitimately elected government of Palestine - Hamas.

What difference did it make to Palestinians that Obama, rather than McCain would be the one to continue to arm and finance their oppression and the Israeli State's violence against them? To promote and sustain economic and political sanctions on the Resistance government until they grovel before and capitulate to US imperialism and the Zionist State to accept the US and Zionist's claim to Palestine for European and American settler-colonists?

What I am saying is that when American voters arrogate to themselves the right to decide, by their pragmatic consideration of which Party's candidate is the 'lesser of two evils' for them, and at the same time whether it will be this Democrat or Republican party political representative of US imperialism's murderous policies in Palestine, genocide and isolation of the Palestinian people. This voting for which is the lesser of two evils concerning their own material and ideological interests, makes those Americans who voted for one or the other imperialist party objectively a political partisan of these imperialist policies, and wars against oppressed peoples Resistance movements.

However, one must make a distinction between the naive Americans who endorse [vote for] Obama or McCain, or any other Democrat or Republican Party imperialist politician as a "lesser evil", who are stupid and on that basis can claim to be innocent of what the murderers do when they assume the officer, doing what they do in your name, because your voting for this person, which bestows upon him the authority, legitimacy to do it in that their stupidity of so voting for this authorization "knew not what they were doing".

By contrast the high profile political activists, such as for instance West, Baraka, Chomsky, Tyner and Zinn, who campaign for Obama as the imperialist the murderer of choice, as representative of the Party of choice knew exactly what they were doing - and do this same shit every election year, by declaring the Republican opponent Party's candidate as prime evil, the devil incarnate!

Political activists who campaigned for Obama - i.e. the Democrats - share with Obama and the democrats in Congress the legacy of the politics of Macbeth, bathed in the unwashable bloody hands of 'guilt by association'. Baraka and Tyner, for instance, have a history of campaigning for the Democratic Party's candidate every four years, always as 'the lesser of two evils', presented as "the reality" in opposition to "fascism".

There is no such an 'evil': even if such a concept did exist it couldn't be comparatively quantified because it would be a metaphysical idea and would not be an empirical phenomena. Politics are not about good and evil in an abstract netherworld of gods, demons, ghosts and goblins, but is the exegesis of externally verifiable material interests in the objective empirical world.

American citizens who campaign for the Democratic Party candidates are no different than those who campaign for the Republican Party candidates. The names of the categories change but the imperialist partisanship is the same. Both are agents of the faction of the US capitalist class' political lackeys and agents of this or that imperialist Party.

Also must be placed among these lackeys of imperialist politics even those who are now naive and not know what they are doing. That is, unless and until those individual now come forth, confess and distance yourselves from the Democratic &/or Republican Party by denouncing/exposing the imperialism of their own Party, and against the US government's image, to expose its hypocritical icon status by demand of them of proving otherwise by siding with the Palestinian Resistance, as represented politically by Hamas, and Hezbollah!

> So, with there being those two bumps on a log, and knowing one or the
> other would win, people certainly hoped that they might influence
> Obama's sad positioning on this and a wide array of other issues once he
> was elected.
> There's not a lot to be had from any US President. Not ever. Never
> happened, and never will happen.

On 6/15/09, Terry wrote:
Well, I can't argue in principle with any of this. But, I can say that
in terms of the election, the options as to who was going to be
President was one or the other.

It was either going to be McCain or it was going to be Obama. That is
the reality.

So, with there being those two bumps on a log, and knowing one or the
other would win, people certainly hoped that they might influence
Obama's sad positioning on this and a wide array of other issues once he
was elected.

There's not a lot to be had from any US President. Not ever. Never
happened, and never will happen.

I never thought of Alice Walker as a Nationalist, and in fact I've
really never known of her to be a deep thinker at all on issues
regarding the masses of Black and oppressed people. But, I also know
that I have people who visit my site who range in the extent of their
knowledge, and have folk whispering in their ear about the Jews.

For those purposes, Alice Walker could be a critical influence.
Everybody who supports a Free Palestine, or will ultimately support a
Free Palestine ain't where you're at yet - and some won't ever be.

So, being swayed by Alice Walker's presentation could be a starting
point for some folk. In fact, even people who supported Obama who will
ultimately realize all the reasons why they should be disappointed, will
evolve to become more radical thinkers as time progresses.

Five years ago, and in fact two years ago - in fact even one year ago, I
wasn't where I am, and I like you, have a long way too go.

So, if I put forth presentations at my site as if everybody was exactly
on the same page as I, nobody would learn a dang thing - and in fact, I
wouldn't have learned anything either.

It's like the relationship between Rosa Parks and Robert Williams. I'm
almost done with a piece on them. A lot of folk wouldn't give Robert
Williams the time of day. Some folk would scoff at the extent of Rosa
Parks' contribution. But, a lot of folk would give Robert Williams a
second look, if their imagination was stirred with the notion that Rosa
Parks loved him.

A young 21 year old can hear about Oscar Grant through Ben Jealous of
the NAACP, look into the Oscar Grant movement and disover Omali

So, I'm not here to merely dictate my views and stand guard over them.
I'm here to attempt to teach them to a wider audience. The strategies
of community education don't always go hand in hand with each and every
strategy of a revolutionary who may not be envisioning steps in the
learning process.

Thanks Lil' Joe.


> --- In, Lil Joe wrote:

This is a serious question, because you are what you do, not what you say.
Baraka, Alice Walker, and all kinds of fake Leftists in America who campaigned
for Obama, given all his hostility to Palestinians and commitment to further arm
and finance the Zionist garrison State, "Israel", support the continued migration
of Europeans and Americans to Palestine and deny the Palestinians right of
return to their expropriated homes, don't you think it hypocritical for these
Democrats, supporters of US imperialism as personified by the murderous
Obama administration, bombing villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well
as aiding Israel, to bandwagon on the global support for Palestinians?

As a matter of principle, that any and all those Black nationalists and fake
"communists" who campaigned for Obama as a "brother" and "progressive",
are to be held politically responsible for those Obama policies and should be
confronted, exposed as imperialist partisans and expelled from every popular
workers and national liberation movement they attempt to set foot on stage
of: they are as hypocritical as the rest of US imperialist politicians, press and
media propagandists, who are today denouncing Iran for supposedly not
recognizing the oppositions electoral 'victory', whereas they - including Obama -
have from day one not only refused to recognize the electoral victory of Hamas,
but have armed and funded Israels attacks on Hamas members of government,
and have placed economic sanctions on Palestine to punish the Palestinians
for voting for Hamas and against the lackey Al Fatah which US and Israel
financed and supported.

Lil Joe

> > On 6/14/09, Terry Howcott terrylynnh@... wrote:

Lessons on The Matter of a Free Palestine, Part 2

Including a riveting word from Alice Walker

LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe