Response to “What is fascism?”

By James Thompson

I wrote the article “What is fascism?” in 2010 in an effort to clarify the concept of “fascism.” It occurs to me that this is an appropriate time to revisit the article and update it.

We have been through a remarkable period following the election of the first African-American President of the United States, Barack Obama. Following his election, some on the left called it a “sea change” and a “qualitative change” in the political direction of this country. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

Although it must be conceded that several important issues have been resolved in a favorable direction, the political movement in the USA over the last seven years has been mostly backward. Many of us are happy that US- Cuba relations appear to be improving and that the Cuban 5 were returned home. Many of us are happy that same-sex marriage is now permissible. Many of us are happy that marijuana is now legal in some states. Many of us are happy that more people have health insurance.

However, it appears that the nation has taken two steps forward and three steps backward. Although US-Cuba relations appear to be improving, the US government is spending massive amounts of US taxpayer money to destabilize the Cuban government. Although more people have health insurance, the quality of their health coverage is generally poor. Universal health coverage is not being discussed.

One rallying cry of the Obama campaign in 2008, The Employee Free Choice Act, was immediately taken off the table as soon as Obama assumed office. The union movement in the USA continues to crumble and deteriorate.

However, the most frightening development under Obama has been the continuation of the development of an openly terroristic government highly influenced by finance capital. As the US government terrorizes the world by bombing, the use of drones, the use of US military troops in foreign countries, it terrorizes its own people at home. Recently, it has become the new normal for African-Americans to be beaten, shot and otherwise murdered by the most visible agents of the state, the local police. It has become the new normal for immigrant workers to be detained and deported. Openly fascist politicians, through the emergence of the Tea Party, are being elected to political office and this is part of the new normal.

Almost all US politicians, left and right, demonize Russia and fully support the fascist regime installed by the US government in the Ukraine through a coup d’ etat. No one blinks an eye at the fact that NATO is now surrounding the Western border of Russia. No one addresses the fact that the Obama administration is spending vast amounts of taxpayer money to terrorize the people of Russia, the people of the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and China.

Some on the left opine that fascism cannot develop if there is no credible threat from the left. For this reason, they argue “It can’t happen here.” However, as Don Sloan argued some years ago “It can happen here, it is happening here, it has happened here.”

One must consider what is a “credible threat from the left.”

People in the US tend to believe that the world revolves around the USA. They bray about “American exceptionalism.” They fail to recognize that there is a credible threat from the left around the world, in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Asia and elsewhere. As the left grows in these regions of the world, imperialism morphs more and more into fascism.

In the US today, there is a political struggle developing between two Democratic Party candidates for president. It is important to have a clear understanding of the political spectrum in the USA today. If all politicians in the US were subjected to an ideological examination, none could be characterized as legitimate left. The CPUSA is morally and ideologically bankrupt, irrelevant, defunct and dead. Traditionally, CPs around the world have been characterized as the “legitimate left.” No such entity exists in the USA today. Although no one in the CPUSA has been recently persecuted, the CPUSA is not a viable political party and has virtually no influence on the political direction of the country.

The political struggle between the two Democratic Party candidates is a struggle between a far right candidate, Hillary Clinton, and a center left candidate, Bernie Sanders. The GOP candidates all occupy an extreme right or ultra right political space. They would make Barry Goldwater blush. In fact, Clinton might make Mr. Goldwater blush.

In the struggle for the primary elections, it is clear that if Bernie Sanders loses, the country will take a sharp right turn politically.

It is unlikely that in a rational world, anyone would argue that Bernie Sanders represents a credible threat from the left. However, the political ideology of the USA has shifted so far to the right (with the able assistance of President Obama) that Sanders might be considered “left.” There have been some reports that panic is developing in the Clinton campaign, and that panic could prove to be contagious. Clinton’s Wall Street backers may soon be quivering and quaking in response to a candidate who calls himself a “socialist” (even though he is not a socialist), calls for a tax on billionaires and speaks openly about “income inequality.”

We all should know by now that campaign promises are not the same as public policy. However, is it better to support a candidate with reactionary campaign promises or a candidate with somewhat progressive campaign promises? People of conscience and people on the left in the United States have a choice in front of them. Should they support a candidate who is somewhat progressive or should they sit on their hands and let the reactionaries win the day? Will people on the left continue to abstain from politics or will they wake up to the real threat coming from the openly fascist elements of the political spectrum? Will they continue to monkey with their phones and send out tweets about their individual escapades or will they struggle for progress? Will they recognize that the terroristic policies of the US government threaten the survival of all living things on the earth or will they continue to chant “It can’t happen here?”

Traitor vs. patriot

By James Thompson

Much has been made in the right wing, bourgeois media, about who is a traitor and who is a patriot in the United States today. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other bourgeois cheerleaders connect the dots by declaring that communists/socialists are traitors and the right wing fringe of the GOP are patriots.

Before we examine this proposition, it is important to clarify the definition of the terms.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a traitor as:

“a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc. : a person who betrays a country or group of people by helping or supporting an enemy”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a patriot as:

“a person who loves and strongly supports or fights for his or her country”

The bourgeois media sidesteps these definitions when identifying traitors or patriots. They also failed to clarify who constitutes a “country.”

When examining these concepts, it is important to keep in mind that a “country” is composed of its residents. In the United States, the populace is composed of very diverse groups who have different interests. There are many ethnic groups in the United States to include Anglos, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and many others. People also belong to various socio-economic strata to include bourgeois and proletarians, in other words owners of the means of production and workers. Another way to put it is wealthy and poor.

Some people have drawn attention to the fact that the 1% owns the vast majority of the wealth in the United States and the rest is divided among the 99%. Many people have pointed to the vast inequality in personal wealth in the United States.

When examining the concepts of traitor and patriot, it is important to keep in mind which socio-economic sector of the population to which the individual is loyal. It is also important to consider the policies advocated by the individual in question and how these policies apply to the interests of the various sectors of the population.

For example, Sen. Ted Cruz, who just announced his candidacy for the position of President of the United States, has taken very strong positions from the starting line. He has made clear that he favors shutting down the US government, especially the IRS. He has also taken an uncompromising anti-immigrant stance, even though he, himself, is an immigrant. Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

Let us examine Sen. Cruz in terms of the traitor/patriot dialectic.

What would it mean to the people of the United States if the federal government was shut down? It would mean that all social programs to include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, Federal Bureau of prisons, Federal Aviation Administration to include air traffic controllers, federal highway programs, public health service, the military, Bureau of Indian affairs, to nothing for the executive branch of the government, legislative branch and judiciary. Also, the border patrol would be shut down. This element of his policies is particularly contradictory. In other words, Sen. Cruz advocates chaos. It should be remembered that the IRS is the agency that provides the funding which makes it possible for this country to function as a sovereign nation.

Most working people with any understanding of the functioning of the United States easily understand that the eradication of the federal government would result in extraordinary hardship for workers and their families. Meanwhile, the people in the 1% would benefit tremendously from the eradication of the federal government. It would mean lower taxes and lower labor costs. For the working class, the eradication of the federal government would mean lower wages and lower social benefit programs. In other words, only the wealthy would be able to afford education for their children, only the wealthy would be able to afford healthcare, the criminal justice system would be reduced and travel would become very difficult or impossible if one was not extremely wealthy. Discrimination against immigrants also benefits the 1% because both immigrant and citizen workers can be manipulated to accept lower wages

So, Sen. Cruz’ positions would clearly define him as a patriot to the 1% and a traitor to the 99%.

Conversely, for example, Sen. Bernie Sanders who advocates an expansion of social programs and a reduction in the inequality of income could be considered a traitor to the 1% and a patriot to the 99%.

In the coming elections, it will be important for people to ask themselves the question “Which side are you on?” and vote accordingly.