|
The responses to the hostage and torture
situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are revealing in practical
terms the chasm separating the bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois parties on the one hand and the
proletarian parties on the other. The torture in
Abu Ghraib, and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan has produced a situation of
condemnation ranging from Bush to the phony communists. In
this public opinion crisis for Amerika, it's most
useful to look at who is really pushing forward
the crisis to its greatest extent and who is
merely saying what is comfortable for the Amerikan
petty-bourgeoisie to hear.
It all started off with Bush criticizing the torture situation. He said we "must understand that what took place in that prison does not represent the America that I know."(1) Senator Conrad said much the same thing before Bush, and of course Reagan's "optimism" about Amerika preceded both. In contrast, Lenin said the following: "First, what is the cardinal idea underlying our theses? It is the distinction between oppressed and oppressor nations. Unlike the Second International and bourgeois democracy, we emphasise this distinction."(2) It's not just a few bad apples: it's a whole nation according to us followers of Lenin. In response to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, Al Gore, Clinton's Vice-President for eight years literally yelled in a speech for Rumsfeld, Rice and Tenet to resign. Along with the combative tone came the statement that this torture was not a matter of a "few bad apples."(3) Al Gore's opinion is acceptable opinion within Amerika and the petty-bourgeoisie is ready to hear it. True, there is a die-hard element, even greater than 10% that openly defends torturing Iraqis. Nonetheless, the majority is with Bush & Gore in a self-image adjustment. The sad truth is that Al Gore's line is identical to that of a party calling itself "revolutionary," the "Revolutionary Communist Party-USA," "RCP-USA." Both Gore and "RCP- USA" deny that they uphold the "few bad apples line," but in fact they do, in the RCP=U$A case, in the face of MIM's challenge to the contrary. It takes the sort of crisis facing the imperialists now to best show the public exactly how the RCP=U$A line dovetails with the imperialists'. Careful reading of the RCP=U$A line will show that they see the bourgeois dictatorship as some kind of pattern of actions by only the police and military. We're not surprised, because the RCP=U$A line is that only 10% of Amerika is enemies. We hesitate to call the RCP=U$A opportunist for saying nothing Gore would not say. The RCP=U$A intentionally represents the petty-bourgeoisie, which means vacillating toward proletarian positions occasionally for maximum popularity while upholding the imperialist alignment with the middle-classes on the whole. The petty-bourgeoisie has no future of its own, and has no choice but to vacillate between the imperialists and proletariat. With the RCP=U$A's intentional line representing the petty- bourgeoisie, it becomes pointless to criticise merely their "opportunism." It is the particular role of the RCP=U$A, CP=U$A etc. to grandstand for the proletariat on behalf of their imperialist masters, the same way Third World lackeys of u.$. imperialism have to make a show of "independence" from time to time in order to serve their U.$. imperialist masters better. The fact that the CP=U$A openly supports the Third World lackeys in the Iraqi occupation regime makes this all the more clear --that supporting the labor aristocracy at home means serving imperialism. It is the official line of the RCP=U$A that only 10% of the U$A is enemy.(4) Get that: it means only 10 out of 100 apples in the barrel are bad ones. Yet, the vocal defenders of the RCP=U$A have the nerve to claim they don't have the "few bad apples" line. In contrast, Lenin said that one quarter of the whole world is oppressor and he admitted belonging to an oppressor nation; even though Russian imperialism was no where near the level of global exploiter as the u.$. imperialists today. There is no detectable difference between the 10 bad apples out of 100 view and the view of Bush and Gore. The RCP=U$A is in fact helping to cover up the enemy just like Bush & Gore. The U.$. contractors in Iraq are another example that causes the political vacillation of the petty-bourgeoisie. On the one hand, the CP=U$A says that it supports the occupation regime in Iraq in which its sister party has one of 25 seats.(5) On the other hand, for some occasional proletarian rhetoric, even the CP=U$A has vaguely admitted that U.$. contractors in Iraq are oppressors.(6) They try to make it sound like these contractors are exceptional, and maybe not even Amerikans. This represents another tactical approach for the servitors of imperialism: adopt a proletarian posture but claim it is only very selectively necessary, and not part of an overall class analysis. What these imperialist lackeys don't do is name Thomas Hamill by name. He was a truck driver in Iraq taken hostage. This would clear up that the CP=U$A was not just talking about Cheney's Halliburton executives in Iraq, but also people like Hamill. Likewise, the RCP=U$A hides behind the common petty-bourgeois opinion that the soldiers/CIA should not be in Iraq. When asked about Thomas Hamill, two of RCP=U$A's most vocal defenders point to a completely different convoy in Iraq instead of Hamill's!(7) Conveniently the RCP=U$A defenders retreat to the comfortable petty-bourgeois position that no troops/CIA should have been there instead of the correct position that both troops and civilian contractors in Iraq are oppressors. In fact, the civilian contractors are both exploiters and oppressors. The important thing is that the absurd and lying evasions of RCP=U$A defenders are entirely predictable based on the line of that party upholding the imperialist country petty-bourgeoisie. MIM knows in advance-- before they even print that newspaper the Revolutionary Worker-- exactly how the RCP=U$A is going to posture briefly for the proletariat while running back to the petty-bourgeoisie and the imperialists for maximum stabilizing effect for imperialism. These philistine/cop defenders of the RCP=U$A say indignantly that MIM is not providing the facts on the RCP=U$A line! "Every word that MIM alleges here is simple false. (Typically.) "Why don't you base your arguments on truth, rather than slander? Who do you think you are fooling? People aren't stupid, they can read,"(7) liar-extraordinaire Kasama says. Well, actually, anyone supporting these RCP=U$A defenders and claiming to be "Maoist" obviously cannot read. If they could read, they would have noticed Kasama switching from Hamill to talking about different Amerikans in Iraq. (If you believed what these philistines said, and didn't notice they were not even talking about Thomas Hamill, count yourself among those not paying attention and not ready to call yourself "Maoist" yet. Keep working on it.) How grossly obtuse these people are in defending Amerika! MIM knew in advance that RCP=U$A would evade the question, because of its line on u.$. truckers. The philistine response lying and dodging is also entirely predictable. This sort of thing has been going on for decades now. The philistines have only two choices: 1) to make a patchwork type argument where Hamill is deemed an exploiter/oppressor but not representative of a class, a choice where he is granted his petty-bourgeois "individuality," a choice whereby RCP=U$A floats above class analysis; 2) to evade through pure smoke-and-mirrors jobs such as pointing to completely different convoys composed of CIA. If any of the Trotskyists, CP=U$A, RCP=U$A or the rest of the chauvinist "left" had half a wit, they would know they should be answering the Thomas Hamill question and do it in principle. If they think that Thomas Hamill was an exploiter in Iraq, then they need to answer what the difference is between him and the rest of the oppressor nation "workers." Thomas Hamill worked for a private company. Who doesn't? Thomas Hamill's company had contracts with the government. Which multinational corporation hiring workers does not? Thomas Hamill is tied up with exploiting the Third World people and his salary showed it. What oppressor nation "workers" in the u$a do not have such links? To these scum evading the question, we say, "Denial is not a river in Egypt."
Notes:
|