by Zoltan Zigedy is available at:
http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

In January of 2012, I reviewed Eric Walberg’s book, Post-Modern Imperialism (Clarity Press, 2011). I enthusiastically concluded that:

Walberg has offered a welcome taxonomy of imperialism from its nineteenth-century genesis until today; he has given a plausible explanation of imperialism’s contours since the exit of the Soviet Union and Eastern European socialism from the world stage; and he has convincingly described Israel’s unique role in the continuing reshaping of imperialism’s grasp for world domination.

Further, Walberg gave a needed response to misguided leftists who were quick to label Islamic resistance to US and Israeli predation as “Islamo-fascist.” Much of the US and European left took a smug, chauvinistic posture–a posture that coincided with the interests of imperialism– toward fighters in the Muslim world daring to defy Western intervention and interference. They ignorantly announced that religious “fundamentalism” fatally tainted their resistance. Walberg struck a powerful blow against these immature conclusions.

Now Walberg has undertaken a more ambitious project in his new book, From Postmodernism to Postsecularism: Re-emerging Islamic Civilization (Clarity Press, 2013). His argument can be summarized– without too much violence to its nuances– as:

1. The last great secular social justice project– socialism– has failed with the demise of the Soviet Union.

2. Islam and its attendant political-social-economic doctrines are viable alternative routes to social justice.

3. Islam is the only alternative that can deliver social justice. Therefore, Islam is the universal way to social justice.

Of course Walberg goes to great lengths to shore this argument with a detailed, fascinating history of Islam and its currents that, alone, is worth the price of admission. He explores the relative shortcomings of other religions, a brief that is factually accurate, but, like the account of Islam, tellingly selective.

Hints of this thesis were embedded in the earlier book, Post-Modern Imperialism. I noted in my review:

In the same vein, it is an exaggeration to portray Islam (or any other religion) as inherently anti-imperialist: in his words, “The unyielding anti-imperialist nature of Islam, its rejection of the fundamental principles of capitalism concerning money, its refusal to be sidelined from economic and hence political life…”

Unfortunately, Islam has the same tortured relationship with imperialism as have all the major religions. Precisely because they possess no robust doctrinal opposition to imperialism in general, all major religions have stood on both sides of the barricades.

The Islamist movement, Hamas, for example, stands as an important component of today’s anti-imperialist front.

But it was not always this way. US ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer, speaking in Jerusalem on December 20, 2001, affirmed that the rise of Hamas coincided with “the promotion of the Islamic movement as a counter to the Palestinian nationalist movement… with the tacit support of Israel” as reported by Dean Andromidas in Global Outlook (Summer 2002). Andromidas quoted Kurtzer: “Israel perceived it as better to have people turn towards religion than toward a nationalistic cause [like the PLO].” PLO leader Yasser Arafat is quoted from the Italian press:

But Hamas is a creature of Israel which gave Hamas money, and more than 700 institutions, among them schools, universities and mosques. Even Rabin ended up admitting it, when I charged him with it, in the presence of Mubarek.

And

Hamas was constituted with the support of Israel. The aim was to create an organization antagonistic to the PLO. They received financing and training from Israel. They have continued to benefit from permits and authorizations.

In the same issue of Global Outlook, author Hassane Zerrouky (Hamas is a Creature of Mossad) outlines how “Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat’s Fatah movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal repression and intimidation.” (reprinted in Global Outlook from L’Humanité).

Thus, while honest revolutionaries must recognize Hamas’s role in defending Palestinians from imperialism today, honesty equally demands acknowledgment of its sordid role in collaborating with Israel in the destruction of secular nationalism and the Palestinian left. It’s difficult to find an “unyielding anti-imperialist nature” in this treachery.

Egyptian Communists acknowledge this vulnerability to imperialist manipulation in the August 3 statement of their Central Committee:

One of the objectives of the projects of imperialism in the Middle East is the establishment of states on religious grounds, which serves mainly Zionist plan to declare Israel a Jewish state for all Jews in the world, as well as the important results of pushing these religious countries to inevitably get caught up in sectarian conflict. And it necessarily creates strategic divisions and fragmentations of the Arab countries and brings the conflict between Sunni – Shiite, Muslim – Christian, Muslim – Jewish to replace the Arab-Israeli national liberation conflict, to replace the social class struggle among the peoples of the Arab countries, and to replace the struggle against authoritarian regimes allied with the imperialist global and international monopolies.

Most Arab socialists and Communists have sought unity with organized Islamic anti-imperialist organizations, sometimes successfully, as with Hizbullah and Lebanese Communists. But on other occasions that trust has been brutally betrayed, as with the slaughter of the Tudeh (Communists) in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

For Marxists, the major religions are a sometime ally in the struggle against imperialism.

Insofar as they welcome cooperation and reject collaboration with the class enemy, Islam and the other major religions will find consistent friends in Marxist-Leninists. Thus, we welcome and support the current shift in the leadership of the Catholic Church toward the cause of the poor and against the ravages of capitalism, just as we regretted the alienation of past Popes from the fate of the Catholic masses.

Contrary to Walberg’s premise number two– the centerpiece of the above argument– Islam and the other major religions fall far short of offering an adequate ethics of social justice for today’s world. The Quran, like the doctrines of the Catholic Church, forbids usury, the collecting of interest on debt. Absent usury, Walberg believes that a comprehensive practice of charity will provide Islam with a complete program of social justice for today and tomorrow.

Aside from the fact that religious practitioners and their leaders conveniently find ways to sidestep or obscure the prohibition of the collecting of interest, “usury” fails to even remotely capture the prevalence and depth of modern-day labor exploitation. The Catholic Church’s condemnation of “excess” profits fails for the same reasons. To suggest that charity alone can solve the incredible poverty, unemployment, and economic inequality of, say, a country like Mali seems patently improbable. And the solution of charity seems dangerously close to the answer advocated by the apologists for unfettered capitalism.

Likewise, the Hebrew concept of “Jubilee,” as an admirable moral prescription of debt removal and property restoration and an answer to the inequities of antiquity, will not put a moral dent in contemporary capitalism. That said, the vital principles of economic justice found in the Torah, the Gospels, and the Quran suggest a posture toward the ravages of capitalism. A casual reader of the texts held sacred by the respective religions will find much encouragement for a condemnation of the process of capitalist accumulation. Should believers read those texts with earnestness, they would undoubtedly become Communists as well as believers!

My own– perhaps eccentric– view is that the major religions cannot escape the charge of hypocrisy unless they embrace socialism, the contemporary embodiment of the moral codes of their founders. Unfortunately, most religious leaders in our time choose to accommodate capitalism.

Walberg is not insensitive to the alternative vision of Marx and Communism. He devotes a full chapter to “Postsecularism: Marx and Muhammad,” going to great lengths to show that Islam answers the questions posed by Marxism while avoiding its “shortcomings.”

Destructive to his argument, he misunderstands the Marxist theory of value as follows:

Kapital’s weakness– the labor theory of value– is a materialist reductio ad absurdum, denying the ‘value’ of ‘unproductive’ labor (the elements brought to bear by the capitalist related to securing markets, research, innovations, factor management)…

This is fatally confused. Marx recognizes a value contribution in ALL necessary labor culminating in the production of a commodity, including the research, innovation, essential organizational management, etc. Further, he sees a necessary value deduction in the labor essential for a commodity’s circulation. What he does not recognize is any value created or socially necessary from the mere fact of ownership. And this contradiction between ownership and labor is precisely the element missing in all of the social doctrines of traditional religions including Islam.

Walberg’s confusion about Marx’s value theory leads him away from the resolution of the contradiction between value created by labor and the ownership of that value by the capitalist, a contradiction only resolved by class struggle.

This error dooms his well-meant, but naive synthesis of Islam and Marxism:

The ijtihad-jihad process is in a sense just a more comprehensive version of Marxist praxis [by] emphasizing:

●social unity rather than class struggle

●the family and spiritual life rather than material production

●evolution rather than revolution

While the sentiment is noble, it is irreconcilable with Marxism. Capitalism’s rapaciousness– acknowledged by Walberg– cannot be eliminated by a retreat to mere spirituality, an unconditional appeal to unity or a common destiny, or the virtue of patience. These are simple facts that religions cannot escape.

I would propose a counter synthesis:

●class struggle as the path to social unity

●the family and spiritual life AND material production

●revolution leading to the realization of these values

which could readily open the road to a Marxist-Islamic understanding and cooperation.

Walberg’s book is timely, coming in the wake of the so-called “Arab Spring.” One feels a veritable joy in his writings bursting from the optimism generated by the risings in Northern Africa and the Middle East. Unfortunately, that optimism proved short-lived.

The Islamic governments established in Tunisia and Egypt generated great social rifts culminating in overthrow in one and growing tensions in the other. Open opposition in Libya and Syria drew the intervention of outside forces that swiftly transformed the struggle into imperialist regime change, destabilization of the regions, and enormous human and infrastructure destruction. Grievances were quickly appropriated by US and NATO meddlers who seized an opportunity to shape the outcomes.

In a little over a year, the rise of Islamic civilization that Walberg foresaw was dashed on the rocks of divisiveness and foreign intervention, just as it has in other times and places.

For the Marxist left, the Arab Spring provoked reservations and guarded sympathy, even apart from nefarious outside interference. On one hand, the rising against entrenched, reactionary authority was a welcome expression of popular will. On the other hand, the risings appeared to be more rebellions than revolutions. That is, the goals of the insurgents were neither united nor well-formed.

As events unfolded, these fears were borne out. Rather than challenge the structures of privilege and exploitation, sides were drawn around different attitudes toward tradition and “modernity,” secularism and spiritualism. While real and not fanciful, these differences do not touch the deeper relations of oppression. As with modern-day Western liberals who are occupied with lifestyle decisions and personal choices, the battles contested in the Arab Spring guaranteed that the poverty and exploitation of the masses would remain untouched.

One hopes are for the revival of a vibrant Marxist-Leninist movement in these countries to nurture these developments from rebellion to revolution.

Zoltan Zigedy

zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

by A. Shaw

Ceilings are odd things.

The USA and Venezuela have ceilings, but the two ceilings are very different.

The ceiling in the USA says the number of registered voters is more or less fixed at something like 50% of the eligible voters and the number of participating voters is fixed at something like 50% of the registered voters. The numbers that describe the ceiling in the USA bounces up and down. But since the ups and downs cancel out each other at the level of the ceiling, the ceiling abides while the numbers bounce. So far, the registration and participation seem resistant to change, once we make these cancellations. In the USA, the ceiling is produced by the lack of capacity or will to change registration and participation.

The ceiling in Venezuela is a lot easier to understand. In Venezuela, 96% of the eligible voters are registered and the tendency is for about 80% of them to participate on election day. Clearly, those numbers are as high as they can get. In Venezuela, the ceiling is produced by the country running out of fresh voters.

Both the whole bourgeoisie in Venezuela and the reactionary wing of the bourgeoisie in the USA know how to deal with the ceiling. Instead of limiting their operations to trying to register the unregistered and to push non-participating voters toward voting machines, reactionaries in the USA and Venezuela aggressively seduce and penetrate supporters of their liberal or revolutionary opponents.

The point, in other words, is don’t ignore some active voters merely because these voters support the opposition. To identify “some active voters” reguires somebody in the campaign with exceptional skill in targeting,

Nobody is talking about dropping voter registration campaigns or dropping Get-Out-The-Vote [GOTV] operations targeted at supporters. We’re talking about supplementation of these traditional operations by a “special operation” that seeks to seduce and penetrate supporters of the opponents in a well planned and highly trained manner.

Perhaps, the best theoretical groundwork for duping supporters of the opponent is found in the work of reactionary bourgeois theorist Gene Sharp and perhaps the top guy on the practical side for this kind of campaigning is JJ Rendon, a Venezuelan political consultant based in Mexico City. According to both Sharp and Rendon, this idea of making fools out of opposition supporters is a huge expansion of the role and importance of opposition research in the campaign. Under this new idea, opposition research now has something else to do than to dig up mud and sling it at the opponent.

In the USA, the electorate seems divided into three roughly equal sectors — reactionary, liberal, and swing voters. So, it’s hard for liberals to mess around with reactionary crackpots when the liberals have swing voters to win over. This means that liberals in the USA can grow at the expense of two sources — reactionaries and swings. In Venezuela, the electorate seems divided into reactionary and revolutionary voters. More polarized. So, the revolutionaries can only grow at the expense of reactionaries.

There are specific ways that these seductions and penetrations of supporters of the opponents should take place. It’s more like an intelligence than political operation. The reactionary wing of the bourgeoisie in USA and the mass of the bourgeoisie in Venezuela know these “ways.” But the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie in the USA and the mass of revolutionary proletariat in Venezuela often repudiate these “ways” and the political end at which these “ways” are aimed, contending that a liberal or revolutionary campaign has limited resources — that is, limited time, limited people, and limited money. Therefore, resources should not be squandered on opposition supporters.

Clearly, as soon as one sees the ceiling in the spheres of voter registration and voter participation, one sees the flaws in these old school arguments. That is, after you run out of unregistereds and non-participants, you can’t rationally continue to chase only them.

by Saul Landau and Philip Brenner

Posted: 08/03/2013 10:54 am

President Barack Obama has a simple way to solve his Guantánamo dilemma. Five years after the president promised to close the detention center for alleged terrorists the prison remains open and continues to leave a stain on the honor and integrity of the United States and its proclaimed commitment to universal human rights.

With a brief and unambiguous message to Cuba’s President Raúl Castro, President Obama could offer to return Guantánamo naval base to Cuba on the condition that Cuba accept all of the prisoners. In one act the United States would rid itself of a loathsome prison and prisoners it has been unable to send anywhere else, open the way to repairing a sixty-year old dysfunctional relationship with Cuba, and repatriate territory that all Latin Americans — not just Cubans — have long viewed with resentment as a symbol of U.S. imperial behavior in the hemisphere. It would be the single most significant action that could break through the barriers of distrust and misunderstanding both countries have erected.

Most Americans don’t know the history of Guantánamo. Under the terms of the 1902 Platt Amendment — a relic of the Spanish-American war that allowed us to control Cuba’s affairs — the United States forced Cuba to give it a 99-year lease for the 47 square-mile territory on which it built the Guantánamo base. In 1934 President Franklin Roosevelt abrogated the Platt Amendment as a good neighbor gesture, but pressured Cuba to sign a new Guantánamo lease, this time with no end date. Following the 1991 Haitian coup, the United States rediscovered Guantánamo’s utility, as a refugee camp for escaping Haitians unwanted in the United States. After the 9/11 attacks the military converted the camp to a high security prison.

To be sure, several matters would need to be negotiated in order to implement this “simple” solution. Apart from the disposition of the base facilities, the two countries would need to agree on the latitude Cuba would have with regard to the prisoners. For example, the United States might seek assurances that Cuba would prevent the travel of released prisoners to the United States or a U.S. territory.

But once positive energy vibrates through U.S.-Cuba diplomacy, many of the disagreements between the two countries would emerge as soluble, as solutions build on one another to engender confidence. It is likely that even before the details of returning the naval base to Cuba were settled, the two countries might be able to overcome the most vexing, immediate source of irritation between them.

The United States holds in federal prisons four Cuban agents convicted of espionage, and Cuba holds an employee of a U.S. Agency for International Development subcontractor convicted of “acts against the independence or territorial integrity of the state.” Just as we have swapped prisoners with Russia and other adversaries, there is nothing stopping us from exchanging Mr. Gross for the four and allowing them all to return to their homes.

Similarly, Cuba has successfully negotiated agreements over expropriated property with every country except the United States. The typical debt-for-equity formula Cuba has used could resolve this fifty-year old issue to the benefit of U.S. citizens and corporations, and might even open the way to new U.S. investment in Cuba.

Or consider that the United States and Cuba already have achieved impressive levels of cooperation in areas of mutual concern – such as drug interdiction and natural disaster preparation – which would be even more effective if the engagements could be deepened, institutionalized, and undertaken without fear of domestic repercussions.

The U.S.-Cuba relationship has baffled ten previous U.S. presidents. It is source of tension between the United States and nearly all of the countries in Latin America. There is no objective reason for it to continue this way, along a hostile road. Solving the Cuba problem is one certain way that President Obama could keep his promises in 2009 to forge a new relationship with Latin America based on mutual respect and have a positive foreign policy legacy. Cuba has indicated a sincere desire to enter into discussions with the United States on all bilateral issues of concern between the two countries, but until now the United States has responded with a self-defeating aloofness.

As dozens of Guantánamo detainees continue their hunger strike, and a ruling about force-feeding them remains in limbo between different federal courts, the moment is ripe for President Obama to act with courage and decisiveness. Guantánamo gives him the opportunity of turning a lemon into lemonade.

Saul Landau is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, and producer/director of “Will the Real Terrorist Please Stand Up.” Philip Brenner is a professor of international relations at American University and co-editor of A Contemporary Cuba Reader.

On Wednesday, July 31, Congressman John Conyers and three other
legislators celebrated Medicare’s 48th Birthday on Capitol Hill by hosting
a briefing by Professor Gerald Friedman who released his study of the
funding of HR 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, showing
that single payer health care is feasible and would save 592 billion in
one year.

Following the briefing, Congressman Conyers was joined by Representatives
Mark Takano and Keith Ellison and Senator Bernie Sanders in a press
conference to call for enactment of single payer health care. The events
were cosponsored by Physicians for a National Health Program, Public
Citizen, and a number of other organizations.

Professor Friedman’s study was covered by The Hill and Becker’s Hospital
Review. The Huffington Post ran an opinion piece by Conyers and Robert
Weissman, President of Public Citizen. Conyers’ Op Ed appeared in The
Hill and his Medicare Birthday Statement was presented in the House.

University of Massachusetts Professor Gerald Friedman’s full study is
available here:
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_final_7.31.13.pdf

Excerpts and links to the articles are here:

1. Study: Single-payer healthcare system would save billions

By Lara Seligman

The Hill, Healthwatch blog, July 31, 2013

Expanding the nation’s Medicare program to cover people of all ages would
save the government billions of dollars, according to a new study released
Wednesday.

The study found that a single-payer health care system based on the
principles of legislation by Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), the
Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, would save the federal
government about $592 billion in one year.

That’s more than enough to pay for comprehensive benefits for all
Americans at a lower cost to the public, according to Physicians for a
National Health Program, which circulated the study. The extra money would
go to paying down the national debt.

Full story:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/august/study-single-payer-healthcare-system-would-save-billions

2. Happy 48th birthday, Medicare

By Rep. John Conyers Jr.

The Hill, July 29, 2013

I believe Medicare For All is the answer, which is why I have introduced
and advocated for since 2003 a publicly funded, privately distributed
insurance program, H.R. 676. Even with the expansion of access that ACA
will provide, there will still be those who fall through the gaps or who
struggle to pay for the costs of medical care. This would not be the case
under a single-payer program like H.R. 676.

More:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/happy-48th-birthday-medicare

3. Fulfilling the Promise of Medicare

By Rep. John Conyers and Robert Weissman

The Huffington Post, July 30, 2013

Nearly five decades after its enactment, here’s what we know: Medicare
saves money by eliminating all the waste associated with the for-profit
insurance industry. And Medicare provides coverage to everyone eligible.
In stark contrast, the for-profit insurers condition care on ability to
pay … and then still try to deny care to those who have paid.

That’s five decades of evidence that indicates the solution to our
nation’s healthcare crisis isn’t cutting Medicare. It’s strengthening
Medicare and expanding it to cover everyone.
However the Affordable Care Act ultimately plays out, we know two things
for certain: Millions of Americans will remain uncovered and the
for-profit insurance industry will remain in charge of prices and
life-and-death treatment decisions. As President Obama once stated, the
only way to ensure everyone is covered is with Medicare-for-All, a
single-payer system.

More:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/fulfilling-the-promise-of-medicare

4. Study: Single-Payer Health System Feasible, Could Save $1.8 Trillion
in 10 Years

By Bob Herman

Becker’s Hospital Review, July 31, 2013

A new study shows that expanding Medicare to every American citizen would
not only achieve universal coverage and trillions in savings, but it’s
also feasible to implement based on legislation that has already been
proposed.

Gerald Friedman, PhD, a professor of economics at the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, released his study today in Washington, D.C., at
a congressional briefing. The basis of Dr. Friedman’s research is HR 676 —
the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act — which is a bill
introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) in February that would
establish a single-payer health care program. The bill has been proposed
for 11 straight years.

In his study, Dr. Friedman said if Rep. Conyers’ bill were signed into
law, the expansion of Medicare could “paradoxically” save the U.S. health
care system $592 billion in 2014 alone. The main savings would come from
slashing “administrative waste” in the private health insurance industry
and using the government’s bargaining power to obtain cheaper
pharmaceuticals, according to the report. Over the next decade, the study
suggested savings could reach $1.8 trillion.

More:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/study-single-payer-health-system-feasible-could-save-18-trillion-in-10-years

Distributed by:

All Unions Committee for Single Payer Health Care–HR 676
c/o Nurses Professional Organization (NPO)
1169 Eastern Parkway, Suite 2218
Louisville, KY 40217
(502) 636 1551

Email: nursenpo@aol.com
http://unionsforsinglepayer.org
8/5/13

by Zoltan Zigedy is available at:
http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

The Ruling Class

The words “ruling class” conjure a group of older, rich, typically white, men sitting in overstuffed chairs in their private club discussing and deciding the future of US domestic and foreign policies. Better yet, images of an annual gathering in a private wooded area spring to mind, with the same wealthy codgers prancing around bonfires and indulging their fantasies before retiring to cigars and cognac and deliberation. To augment these representations, film directors like Jean Renoir (The Rules of the Game), Luis Bunuel (The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie), and Peter Medak (The Ruling Class) have sought to provide vivid, often comical narrative flesh to the manners and fashions of those who are said to decide our fate—the ruling class.

But this is not what Marxists mean by “ruling class.” They do not deny that wealth and power come together from time to time, both socially and to do business, but Marxists would be hard pressed to name all the names and locate the seats of power.

For Marxists, the idea of the ruling class is the answer to an enigma: How does a relatively small segment of the population impose its will over everyone else? How could a tiny minority advance its interests ahead of the interests of the majority? And how could that minority do it not once, not occasionally, but systematically?

By asking these questions, we open the door to envisioning an alternative arrangement, an arrangement that would place the will and interests of the majority first. But first we must provide an answer.

Behind the words “ruling class,” Marxists find the secret of elite rule in a complex system of social relations and processes that compel, control, confuse, or secure consent, while frustrating any attempt to rebel. Ingenious mechanisms– electoral pageantry, entertainments, competitions, contrived identities, insatiable consumption, and a host of other distractions– deflect the majority from the question of who should rule. And should some get the bold idea of rejecting this machinery of consent, there are instruments of repression: the police and the judiciary.

These systems of contrived consent and coercion are posed as elements and guardians of “civil society,” when, in fact, they protect the interests of a minority of the super rich and protect them, their minions, and servants from any challenges from the many. Money and its influence fuel these mechanisms; from elections to movies, from lifestyles to consumption, the hand of an unseen class shapes the direction.

Like an electron, the ruling class is studied from its traces. While we cannot see or touch electrons, we know they exist from their relationship and influence upon other particles and processes. That is, their footprint is evidence for their existence. Similarly, the ruling class footprint is all over the social, political, and economic world.

History teaches that nothing beneficial to the great majority comes without a struggle. Why would this be? Who stands in the way of the majority will?

The answer should be apparent: the class that rules by virtue of its accumulated wealth and the power that it buys.

Bourgeois Democracy

“Bourgeois democracy” and “capitalist democracy” are terms that pose the fundamental question of “democracy for whom?” The terms remind us that the belief that there is some kind of pure democracy, a democracy that affords everyone an equal voice in decisions is only attainable when all the advantages of wealth and power are removed from decision-making processes.

Thus, in capitalist society– what Marx meant by “bourgeois society”– the wealthy are able to multiply the influence of their sole votes in the democratic process by “buying” elections. They use their ownership of the media, their influence over legislation, their command over political parties, and their vetting of candidates to ensure democracy for the few. The mechanisms for capturing electoral power are, of course, money and ownership.

Despite boastful claims of delivering democracy, the electoral systems of Europe and the US present outcomes that consistently favor the wealthy and their wealth-producing corporations. And when something resembling the popular will arises, it is quickly smothered with an outpouring of media demagoguery and the enticement to compromise. The rare electoral ascent of popular rule invariably faces naked, unabashed repression by the wealthy through their organs of coercion. One only has to review the fascist takeovers and military coups of the twentieth century to understand the limits of bourgeois democracy.

The deception of bourgeois democracy is not that the rules are not fair; in principle, anyone could be elected to an office. Rather, the deception is that everyone has the same possibility of winning an election. Trusted candidates supported by great corporations have an infinitely greater chance of winning against a candidate armed only with integrity and a commitment to social justice.

And throughout the capitalist world, corporations support only candidates who are loyal to the bourgeois system. Today, the labor movement alone could marshal resources that even remotely challenge a corporate-sponsored campaign; sadly, most of the labor leadership is content to cast those resources before the corporate candidate who is less offensive to working people. And corporate candidates have the incentive to only marginally appear closer to representing the working class.

It is irresponsibly cynical to believe that nothing good can be accomplished within a regime of bourgeois democracy; and it is delusional to believe that fundamental change can be accomplished with bourgeois democracy intact. Reforms– important reforms– are possible with a bourgeois democratic government. But fundamental change in the balance of forces between the rich and the rest of us is impossible without fighting to replace it with working class democracy.

Moreover, the transitional period between bourgeois democracy and proletarian or working class democracy is inherently unstable. Only one class can rule until classes are finally abolished.

Idealists and utopians constantly imagine a smooth exchange of the reins of rule through the bourgeois democratic electoral process. They see the wealthy and powerful recognize defeat and pass the keys of governance on to the representatives of working people. History knows of no such event.

That doesn’t mean that working class democracy can’t be approached through the bourgeois democratic process. It only means that working people must be prepared to meet every challenge, every reaction mounted to workers’ power. Invariably the foes of change will react– that’s why they’re called “reactionaries.”

Games of chance, like the institutions of bourgeois democracy– representative elections, formal legal systems, decentralization of power, etc– are not inherently unfair. In theory, they give everyone a reasonable opportunity for success. That is their appeal. But in practice, the poker player with far greater stakes will inevitably win. Similarly, bourgeois democracy guarantees that those with the great bankrolls will dominate the game of politics unless they are forced to play a different game.

State-Monopoly Capitalism

“State-monopoly capitalism” is one of the least-well understood ideas of Marxism; yet it is one of the most important.

Marxists understand that for most of the last century capitalism has become more and more monopolized with a shrinking number of enterprises in all of the key industries. This process has resulted in fewer and fewer giant enterprises absorbing or dissolving smaller, less competitive rivals– the process of merger and acquisition. Old industries like mining, steel, auto, and other manufacturing have grown more concentrated, as have newer technology-based industries like telecommunications and computers.

Some have mistakenly asserted that the Marxist theory of monopoly capital implies that only one or a few enterprises will dominate every industry in time. It does not.

It does predict that the process of greater and greater concentration of capital in the leading enterprises located within an industry will continually be a feature of capitalism. It also implies that the cost of entry– the amount of capital needed to start up an enterprise– will grow greater and more prohibitive over time in those industries that have achieved maturity. Thus, it is the process of concentration that is revealed by the theory and not the status of individual enterprises in the capitalist hierarchy. Marx’s colleague Frederick Engels put this point well when he exposed the logic behind this process: “Competition is based on self-interest, and self-interest in turn breeds monopoly. In short, competition passes over into monopoly.” Engels affirms that competition will continue, further leading to even greater concentration.

But along with the concentration of capital, another process is at work: the continual merging of monopoly capital with the bourgeois state. The state will play a larger and larger role in the destiny of monopoly capital and, conversely, monopoly capital will obtain a greater and greater role in the operation and direction of the state.

This process– the underlying expression of state-monopoly capitalism– is exemplified every day and in every way. The bail-out of financial institutions while mortgagees are thrown under the bus illustrates well the “ownership” of the state by big capital and the disdain of the state for the people. The regulatory agencies of the state grease the operations of monopoly capital while paying little head to the people’s interest. The coercive arms of the state function to protect and expand the corporate horizon abroad and protect property and bourgeois values at home. The state establishes secretive and undemocratic trade agreements and global institutions that protect and promote monopoly corporations from the restraints of regional and national interests. The doors of big capital and government swing both ways as their respective leaders change places.

The political Right rails against big government, laying every social and economic ill at government’s doorstep. This is, of course, absurd, but not because government is a benign or neutral arbiter of the people’s interests, as liberals want to suggest. The idea that government “bureaucrats” possess some deep-seated evil intent to cause mischief on individuals, businesses, and the economy strains the last thread of credibility. They have no common interest to buttress such a conspiratorial view. The rightist anti-government position is simply the disguise for shilling for monopoly capital.

On the other hand, the liberal position that government stands as a neutral arbiter and guardian of the rights of man is an equal absurdity. Moreover, opinion polls of confidence in government institutions– notably Congress– show that the US population knows that it is absurd. The responses of “a great deal” and “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress together barely reach double digits in recent Gallup polls, a showing even below that of the banks.

Election reform, term limits, and the other panaceas will fail to break the solid weld of monopoly capital to the state; only the evisceration of monopoly capital will break that connection.

The Interplay of the Three Ideas

The three Marxist ideas discussed above share many features and interact profoundly with one another. Bourgeois democracy is an instrument of class rule in the era of capitalism, an instrument of the capitalist ruling class. In other eras, ruling classes sustained their rule with other mechanisms.

State-monopoly capitalism is the expression of the most recent, mature stage of capitalist development, a stage that brings with it the most corrupted, crisis-ridden expression of bourgeois democracy.

While the ruling class maintains a stranglehold on governance in this era, its democratic veneer is constantly eroded; more and more of the governed recognize bourgeois democracy as thinly disguised, but naked rule by the wealthy and powerful. At the same time, state-monopoly capitalism exhausts its means to avoid or moderate economic decline or stagnation.

The maturation of these political and economic contradictions generates a revolutionary crossroads, a moment when working people must choose between veritable slavery or taking the reins of power.

Zoltan Zigedy

zoltanzigedy@gmail.com