Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Making Room for Everyone in This T-34

     
Class reductionism refers to a damaging trend among certain left activists, namely the belief that it's ok to ignore the specific oppressions faced by Oppressed Nationalities, Women, Queer workers, religious minorities, Disabled workers, in short, anyone who is not a cishet white male worker.  They usually claim that these concerns will be automatically addressed by a socialist revolution, despite all evidence to the contrary, leading sober observers to the conclusion that they just don't care.  A recent example of this is the St. Louis left applauding the decision of the County Prosecutor's staff to join the murderously racist police union, in an attempt to undercut Wesley Bell's reform agenda.  This needlessly divides the movement, marginalizes the very people we need to be centering, and is something Lenin himself fought against.

 Class Reductionism is Anti-Leninist Because...


   It relies on the pre-Lenin assumption that the revolution would be the affair of the most elite workers of Europe, which events proved faulty at best. Lenin saw that Capitalism would be weakest among those who were suffering the worst under it- namely the oppressed peoples of the world, such as colonized backwater Russia and its hundreds of subjugated nationalities. Whereas mainline Social-Dem parties had no problem supporting imperialism in WWI, trusting that their workers would set their colonial subjects free after the revolution.  Thing is, the revolution never came on their terms. Then we had Trotsky telling us to ignore the developing world in favor of repeated, costly attempts at revolution in the west, Lenin and Stalin saw a more fertile following among the colonized nations, and acted accordingly. Plenty of national bourgeoisie among oppressed nations could make useful temporary allies. It doesn't take much to see how this applies to any group of people who are especially marginalized under capitalism and have organized for their interests (Afro-Americans, Queer ppl- despite comrade Stalin's short-sighted deference to popular prejudice, Indigenous populations, etc.) Therefore, a correct ML position would be to support these groups in their struggles under Capitalism, but also to work with vanguard elements of those communities to teach all parties that socialism is a necessary precondition to the final abolition of racism, homophobia, sexism and others. Basically, East Germany is the best example of this stuff working well.  

      One clarification is to confess that not all MLs embrace the  necessary understanding of Leninism, which at its best could be described as an early form of intersectionality.  Uncle Joe Himself kowtowed to a bunch of angry homophobes led by Gorky, and historically socialist societies haven’t always been enlightened on each of these issues.  For example, Romania under Coucescu was as sexist as any Christian theocracy, and movements in countries with stronger churches (Russia, Venezuela) haven’t had much luck holding back homophobia.  Additionally, there is the fact of the “Doctors’ Plot” accusations that fell most heavily on Soviet Jews with very little justification, and looks like just vulgar antisemitism- truly disappointing from the USSR which did so much to fight antisemitism in the 1920s and 30s.  

     And yes, plenty of modern (mostly white, straight and male) left groups think that just ending the capitalist mode of production will suffice for eliminating social oppressions.  Basic decency would suggest that this is, technically speaking, fucked up.  History would also suggest a) that this is not correct) and b) the most successful movements are often those that reach out directly to all oppressed people and show us that our interests are part of the workers’ movement.   

     A really good case study is how 19th century Germany birthed the western world’s first modern LGBT Community in the 1840s, and over the next 50 years brought it leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world in Queer Community.  This helps explain why the KPD (Communist Party of Germany) was Queer-positive and remembered their Queer members and Comrades after the Holocaust, and eventually built a relatively queer-positive socialist democracy, decades before we were even legal in the US.  

     Where we bring orthodox Marxism back into the picture is in looking at the effects of each of these oppressions.  By this I don’t mean that Marx is a more eloquent or enlightened critic of racism, sexism or anything like it than MLK, Fanon, Hughes, Davis, or anyone like that, but that Marx’s explanation of how value is extracted from workers is the root to my understanding of how the system sustains itself, and how even socially privileged white workers are economically undercut by our own racism and that of our bosses.

     This guides my interest in political action- I’m hesitant to use the pejorative “Oppression Olympics” for describing the thicket of competing demands from different oppressed peoples to remedy different social wrongs, but it often seems to fit.  I confess to being overwhelmed and confused by apparent contradictions of modern intersectionality (i.e., is it still ok to fight homophobia or partner violence when they are perpetrated by PoC?  Modern intersectionality says no.  When and how can Atheists like myself be permitted in movements that include religious people?  Modern intersectionality says that to be non-religious is to be a Nazi.  How do we include Disability rights in the movement?  Modern intersectionality says that Disabled people who do not belong to an oppressed nationality are faking it), and the only framework I’ve found that leaves me any semblance of clarity or sanity is to focus on the material aspects of these issues.  I.E. prejudice is a problem because it leads to action- whether job discrimination, financial super-exploitation, police violence, wife-beating and other aspects of rape culture, and pitting workers against each other.  

     My native St. Louis is a perfect example of just how fucked up the workers’ movement is by racism, including class reductionism.  When most unions ignore oppressed nationality and women workers, and endorse police violence against marginalized people, Workers of Color don’t necessarily see how their interests are served by these unions!  This leaves us at each other’s throats, with the unions constantly deciding who is still in and who is out.  Generally speaking in STL, it’s the older, white “labor aristocracy” against the Black community, with Women’s groups and the Queer community of all races fluctuating between the two poles, and nobody pays any attention to the immigrants except in cases of extreme emergency.  Guess who wins from this?  The Capitalists!  Workers can't be surprised when our indifference to other workers' human rights alienates them from us.

     The fundamental question at the heart of this is, why am I a tankie?  And how do I define Tankie?
 Let’s lay my identity "qualifications" out on the table- I’m a white, college educated, transgender (binary), panromantic, demisexual, autistic, Atheist, German-American, working woman.  Privileged in a number of key ways, oppressed in others, and exploited like every other American who doesn't derive their income from investment. 
I define a Tankie as


1.        An orthodox Marxist-Leninist

2.       Who is willing to work with what they have, and not needlessly endanger the movement

3.       Sometimes including Maoism or Hoxhaism, though not in my case

4.       And who sees value in examples of Actually Existing Socialism.


I am a Tankie because

1.        I believe Marx and Engels laid out the problem basically correctly, Lenin saw where and how to strike to solve it, and Stalin codified their works into their most practical, accessible and effective form.  These four are great teachers for any revolutionary, though we need to be aware of their limitations and missteps as much as their wisdom.  To break capitalism we must break imperialism.

2.       I know that we need a political revolution to empower the workers, an economic revolution to abolish private property, and a cultural revolution to purge capitalist, racist, sexist and homophobic elements in our culture.  And even modest gains under capitalism are worth fighting for as long as we use the occasion to educate our class family.

3.       I think we’re going to have to organize, and a handful of anarchist students with rifles is not going to be a reliable guarantor of my safety either before or after any stage of the revolution.  Oppressed people need a revolutionary-led state to serve us, and an inclusive Party to integrate us into the broader people’s movement.

4.       The Soviet Union and its allies made terrific strides towards a more just society, and the PRC, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and others continue to do so.  We should study their methods and learn from their successes and failures.





It's on us to ensure that there is room for everyone in our T-34.

Sunday, December 9, 2018

Looking at the 2020 Field


How I’m Choosing my 2020 Candidate

In 2007 I approached the Democratic primaries focused on two issues: ending the US occupation of Iraq, and supporting a transition to clean energy.  The main difference I saw among the candidates was that then-Senator Obama had opposed the Iraq War before Clinton or Edwards had done so. 
This proved to be a mistake, as the antiwar movement was marginalized from its mass constituency by Obama claiming the peace mantle even as he massively expanded bombings of civilians in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, while the public option, Civil Rights bills for Queer people, and cap and trade were all abandoned, the Endangered Species Act was frozen, and privatization advocates were installed in the Department of Education.  Much of this could have been done by executive order, and eventually was in last-minute, short-lived attempts to satisfy abandoned constituencies.  Whether by overt malice, or by deference to the process, the best opportunity for radical change in two generations (and counting) was lost.

Obviously, the most important reason for this was the resilience and skill of the Bourgeoisie in co-opting reformist movements, but I think it would be an error to write off all potential improvements under a bourgeois-democratic system because of the Obama betrayals.  Real changes are possible with the right candidates, not to the system itself, but to the lives and livelihoods of millions of workers, which will strengthen the movement towards an eventual revolution.  Less desperate workers are stronger workers.   

The question then becomes- how do we pick a presidential candidate we can work with, one who will respond to the people's movement?  How do we gauge a president’s interest in working with their constituency vs. defending the process?  Who do we think will be willing to match GOP hardball coup tactics?  

I think we’re looking for someone who has a record of opposing Democratic leadership from the left at a time when they faced consequences for doing so.  Bernie obviously qualifies for his opposition to the TPP before it became a cause célèbre, his following the lead of activists and coming around to the necessity of abolishing ICE, and more generally for his courage in running against Clinton when no one else would.  I have to temper this with an awareness of his recent apologia for racism, and his statements that issues related to racism and sexism are unimportant.  I still think Bernie is the candidate least likely to betray us, but I’m not sure he’ll be consistently thinking of the entire working class, especially given his condoning racists' refusal to support Black candidates and tolerance of antichoice positions.  Whether or not I can support him again will depend in large part on the people he surrounds himself with.

The only other major candidate I can think of who has defied Dem. Leadership to a comparable extent is Kirsten Gillibrand, who has been cut off from party funding after standing with the #MeToo movement to criticize Bill Clinton’s past sexual abuse and to call on Franken to resign.  Whether we agree with her actions or not, they clearly show that she was willing to stand with Democratic voters even at a cost of massive campaign funding and her relationship with the Clintons.  To me, this looks like a principled declaration of independence that helped Doug Jones win Alabama and distinguished her from the pack.

This is not a perfect metric.  It privileges politicians who have been well liked or rich enough to weather controversies, in short, looking for insurgent candidates with a record privileges those who can get away with such an insurgency.  It’s hard to imagine Kamala Harris doing things like this, but it is also hard to imagine such dissent being tolerated from a Black woman.  That said, I do not see anything resembling this hint of independence in her career.  I’ll be looking very closely at her record of arguing against commutations for exonerated prisoners and her sluggish response on ICE, and hopefully finding something that will enable me to endorse her. 

But for now, my choices remain Bernie and Kirsten

Sunday, December 2, 2018

Confronting Fascism Part 2

Part 2

    There are three distinct elements within fascism that we must confront.

     The robber baron- a rich boy investor who doesn’t get his way under liberal democracy, so he funds radical groups to subvert democracy and seize the power of the state. May either be motivated by pure greed or actually think an antidemocratic society with him and his ilk on top is best for everyone. Example- Koch brothers, Trump, the military-industrial complex. These fascists may well be genuinely bigoted, even to a murderous degree, like Trump and Henry Ford, but they are primarily motivated by avarice and lust for power. The exceptions are the religious fanatics among them who feel they are called by god to wreak genocide AND to rule.

     The priests of hate- usually but not always rich, intelligent enough to see the contradictions of capitalism, or to invent fictional ones, but blames them on target of choice- women, Jews, immigrants, Queer people, Oppressed Nationalities, or other religious minorities. Examples- Hitler, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Limbaugh, Bannon, etc. This force is most prominently drawn from the petty bourgeoisie, and seek elite sponsorship for their hatred, working in conjunction to tear down the laws of liberal democracy.

     The Brute- workers who prize their social privileges over their economic interest, or who actually believe the lies of the Shapiros and Petersons. Those who care more for being able to step on another’s face than about whether or not they themselves have shoes. This minority of the working class may be motivated by religion or social privilege, to keep their allegiance to a system that keeps them at the disposal of the robber barons. They may benefit in the short term from plundering marginalized people, but remain workers, supporting the parasitic robber barons.

    Unfortunately, we see a misleading presentation of fascism in many of our best known movies about World War II.  Both Das Boot and Downfall depict the German military as reluctant at best to follow the orders of the Nazi regime they supported and served from day one, while erasing their complicity in Nazi crimes. Stalingrad, on the other hand, squarely addresses the fact that more than just the Nazi leadership was responsible.


1.  Das Boot
a)  The U-Boot sailors are shown to be apolitical, with both captains depicted criticizing the Nazi leadership. Setting aside the fact that being apolitical meant supporting the status quo, U-Boot crew were chosen for their political allegiance
b)  The one overtly Nazi officer is made a point of ridicule by the other sailors.
c)  No mention is made of U-Boot sailors being first in line to receive jewels and other valuables from death-camp inmates.


2.  Der Untergang 

         a)Dr. Schenck shown as heroic because of his Wehrmacht position. Specifically, he is shown flouting Nazi orders in his capacity as an army doctor, using this position to say he only obeys army commands, not those from the SS. Not depicted is his work as part of the SS conducting lethal experiments on Holocaust victims.
     b)  Various generals are shown defying Hitler
     c) The worst of the atrocities shown (Volkssturm sacrifices, child soldiers, etc) as well as mentions of the Holocaust, are all shown to be the responsibility of Nazi high command; Hitler, Göbbels, the SS…
     d)  The military are generally shown as exhibiting concern for the civilians, and standing up to Hitler’s mass suicide orders. This may be correct in comparison to the Nazi leadership, but being shown devoid of context makes the military out to be honorable humanitarians who stand against Nazism.


3.  Stalingrad (1993 version) 

     a) Ordinary soldiers are shown gloating over enslaved Soviet citizens 
     b) Ordinary soldiers are shown raping captured Soviet soldiers
     c)Even the captain who is depicted as heroic and at least nominally anti-nazi or unpolitisch is                  held responsible for going along with the war machine, and is taken to represent the best of                the German officer corps!
     d)  Howsoever they started the war, in the course of it the German military become complicit in      the crimes of the Nazi state. This movie comes the closest of the three to showing                                  the full gallery of fascist rogues for what they are.



     This limited view- that fascism is only the work of a handful of violent racists and their willing followers, is mirrored by class reductionism.  Dimitrov suggests that fascism in a vacuum is inherently unstable, as it can't meet the needs of the working class. If we understand the different sources of fascist support in different sectors of society, maybe we can can explain the system’s persistence. Fascism will worsen the problems in capitalism, which by definition is paying workers less than we are worth. This will supposedly motivate the working class to overthrow it. Looking at examples of fascism throughout history however, will show that fascism can command long-term loyalty from the very people Dimitrov thought were going to overthrow it. This is where the alliance between business elites and the priests of hate becomes critical. Oppression cannot thrive in a society that is becoming more free, and, as LBJ said, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” Fascism strengthens the robber barons, and entertains their brutish dupes with the license to commit mass violence against marginalized people. It is no coincidence that the longest-lived blows against fascist systems have been imposed from outside rather than from inside their rule.


      The most reactionary bigots, regardless of their class positions, are a force to take seriously, of course, and often rise to prominence or even political power through more or less terroristic means. In societies where fascism has taken hold, they may well enter the ruling class itself.


     Surely, some will decide that it is better to trade our political and economic power in exchange for a supply of scapegoats. And for that, they will be responsible. We have the obligation to educate ourselves. A vote for a fascist is a vote against our class siblings, and against decency. All advanced and progressive humanity must stand against the brutes who would betray us as surely as we stand against the priests of hate and their robber baron masters. No, the brutes do not reap the windfall profits that fascism sucks out of the working class, but they can care more about their social privileges and the thrill of persecuting their perceived enemies than about their own well-being.


     So, is fighting bigotry enough to end fascism? No. Is pointing out that many fascist supporters are being exploited enough? Also no. Omission of fascism’s class structure will leave us playing whack-a-mole, trying to fight a multitude of oppressions with limited potential for unity. Omission of those social oppressions, meanwhile, will leave us unawares when some of our own class brothers betray us and flock to the banner of fascism. To fight fascism, we must fight greed, exploitation, racism, sexism, religious extremism, and their champions all at once. This is a daunting task, but there is no Red Army to save us this time. We have no alternative.