by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
Revolution #029, January 8, 2006, posted at revcom.us
Out of What Could This Civil War Arise?
The first question that needs to be spoken to here is: Where is this civil war coming from–out of what combination of factors could it arise?
Now in this connection, some of what I’ll be speaking to will be in
response to something that has been raised–by way of criticism of this
overall analysis–the question: “Why would they do that?”
In other words, why would the “they” who rule this system let things go
to those kinds of extremes? Well, first of all, I have previously
spoken to how there is not one single “they”–and I won’t repeat all of
that here.1 And, secondly, I will talk about why and how this could, in fact, come about, whether or not particular individuals within the ruling class might desire this.
It has also been raised, in response to–again, that is, by way of
criticism of–this “coming civil war” analysis, that it is possible to
understand why there was a civil war in the U.S. in the 1860s, because
you had two different modes of production then, which were increasingly
coming into conflict with each other (a slave system, based in the
South, and a developing capitalist system, based in the North); but now
you don’t have that kind of situation, so why would there be such a
fundamental antagonism? Well, there have been experiences, for example
in Nazi Germany, where sections of the ruling class were crushed by
other sections without there having to be different modes of production
involved. So conflicting modes of production is not a necessary
requirement for there to be an all-out confrontation, in which one side
or the other will be crushed, even for this to take place among the
powers-that-be, although the Civil War in the U.S. in the 1860s did
have a certain definite particularity–it represented the completion of
the bourgeois-democratic revolution in the U.S.–that was its
historical particularity and peculiarity.
But let’s talk about “the coming civil war” in the U.S. today and
relate this to the “Pyramid” analysis in different aspects, and what
are similarities but also important differences in relation to the
Civil War of the 1860s.2 And let’s broaden this out to include the question of the Civil War and the “Weimar Republic.”3
One of the striking things which comes through every day about the
present situation in U.S. society, and in terms of contradictions and
struggle within the ruling class–or the relative lack of struggle on the one side within the ruling class–does flow from the “Pyramid” analysis. That is, on the one hand,
there is significant paralysis of the liberal imperialists (here I am
referring generally to “liberals” within the leadership of the
Democratic Party), in terms of contention with the opposing section (or
sections) of the ruling class (those more generally grouped within the
Republican Party), and at the same time on the part of these
“liberals”–and generally on the part of the Democratic Party–there is
a conscious and deliberate attempt at demobilization of the
masses, particularly those on “their side of the pyramid” (that is, the
masses of oppressed people and progressive forces in society, broadly
speaking, who generally support and vote for the Democratic Party, even
while they are consistently betrayed by it–and many even recognize
this, at least to a certain degree, often voting for the Democrats as
the “lesser evil”). These two things go hand in hand: paralysis in
terms of fighting their “right-wing” rivals within the ruling class
(which, yes, involves a definite fascist core) and deliberate demobilization of
the “base of the Democratic Party.” So that is the present dynamic
within the ruling class: the initiative and the coherence, powerfully,
around a program is overwhelmingly on one side of the divide in the
ruling class (one side of the pyramid, if you will–“the right”), while
the other side (“the left”) is, on the one hand, paralyzed to a
significant degree, putting up feeble and generally backpedaling
opposition in relation to “the right,” while working deliberately and
systematically to demobilize any kind of mass outpouring
against particularly egregious policies of the current regime and
against the whole direction in which it is taking things.
This relates to the question of the bourgeois-democratic “Weimar
Republic” in Germany after World War 1–how it was in many ways ripe
for destruction by the Nazis after a certain point, and how the
contradictions that were posed in Germany at that time (in the
aftermath of Germany’s defeat in World War 1) provided a certain
favorable “environment” for the Nazis to grow and even to rise to
power. Of course, there was an underlying basis of massive inflation,
mass unemployment, and the situation of Germany in the international
network of imperialist relations, where it had been deprived of
territory it had previously held, had its armed forces severely
restricted, and generally was put on rations and forced to pay
reparations by the victorious imperialists, as a result of World War
1–those conditions, of course, don’t exist in terms of the U.S. in
today’s world. But there still is a similarity with the Weimar Republic
and in particular the flabbiness of the Weimar Republic. If you watch
the movie “Cabaret” you’ll see some of this portrayed. It’s a very
relevant movie to see now–you see how the fascists were able to play
on a certain decadence of the Weimar Republic and on the way in which
it was weak and flabby in relation to the interests of the bourgeoisie
in that situation, the interests of German imperialism. I have written
elsewhere about why and how the Nazis went after the Weimar Republic
and what parallels there are with the situation in the U.S. today,
which I won’t repeat here. But there is that certain dynamic where the
relativism and flabbiness, if you will, of the Democratic Party (the
equivalent, in the U.S. today, of the Weimar Republic) becomes a
perfect foil and target. You could see this in the whole Clinton
impeachment crisis: Clinton and what he represented became a perfect
foil and target for this whole fascist element of the ruling class in
the U.S. today.4
One of the things that is expressive of this, or is part of the
picture here, is that we have this whole phenomenon that arose out of
the ’60s and the contradictions which were set loose or intensified
then, and the social changes that went along with that–some of which
have been reinforced by changes in the economy, particularly having to
do with the position of women in relation to work, and the
reverberations of that back within the family and relations between men
and women. But there was this whole ensemble of social conflicts that
was set in motion by the ’60s, which is still unresolved. That’s one of
the things Pat Buchanan was speaking to when, in his book The Death of the West–and
I have given him credit for being far-seeing–he said: right after
September 11 there was all this rallying around the flag and
expressions of national unity, but it won’t last, because there are
these fundamental (as he calls them) “cultural divides.” An important
part of the picture here–and this relates to the analogy to the Weimar
Republic and the Nazis going after the Weimar Republic–is that,
because in the U.S. there has not been a revolutionary rupture to a
whole other system, and a whole new and radically different
framework–in terms of the economic base and the superstructure of this
country and in terms of world relations–a lot of the things that the
’60s set in motion which were positive have turned into their opposites
in some important aspects. Some did so sooner and some after a longer
period of time; and then they become convenient foils and objects of
attack by these fascist forces. Some of this became readily apparent
even during the ’60s itself–for example, the “sexual revolution” and
“free love” became, in significant ways, another form of preying on
women. That contradiction asserted itself very rapidly. But a lot of
more positive things that came out of that period were not able to find
full expression and to become embodied in an actual radical rupture and
transformation of society as a whole (and world relations), because
they ran up against the limits of what could be accomplished within the
confines of this system and its rule over society–this economic base
of capitalism and its whole superstructure of political rule by the
capitalist class, and of the dominant bourgeois politics, ideology and
culture generally–and so these things that came forward through the
’60s gave rise to their opposites in many ways. Forms of cultural
expression that were positive did turn sometimes into forms of
decadence. Things that were going against very strait-laced and
confining and suffocating norms, degenerated into forms of relativism.
Especially when you add in the defeats of the proletarian revolution
internationally (and in particular the restoration of capitalism in
China after Mao’s death in 1976), then much of the opposition of
various kinds to “faultline” forms of oppression in this society, such
as the oppression of women and of Black people and other oppressed
nationalities, were reduced to “identity politics,” with the
corresponding philosophical expressions of relativism.
These things have become, in many ways, easy targets and foils for
right-wing forces. Because the proletariat is not yet leading and
giving shape to the struggle against all forms of oppression, because
this is not yet part of a powerful proletarian revolutionary movement
and not being transformed in that context, then the ways in which,
owing to factors both within the U.S. and internationally, some of
these things have turned into their opposites, makes them convenient
“cabarets” for the Nazis to go after. And distortions of
what was raised through the movements of the ’60s also become targets
for the equivalent of Nazis in the U.S. So, this is all part of the
picture as well.
Now when we think about this, one element that should cause us to
become very sober, very quickly–this is something that was actually
pointed out by Larry Everest in an article in our newspaper a little
while ago5—
is this: If this section of the ruling class, with right-wing Christian
fundamentalist forces (the Christian Fascists) as a major and driving
force at the core of this section of the ruling class, consolidates its
hold on the state of U.S. imperialism, this will be a force not like
the Iranian theocratic fundamentalists who are apparently trying to
develop nuclear weapons, but will be a theocratic fundamentalist ruling
force, in the U.S., that already has an arsenal, a massive
arsenal of nuclear weapons. It’s bad enough in general that imperialism
has these weapons of truly mass destruction, but this will heighten the
madness that is concentrated in that.
You can see this, for example, with this Congressman (Tancredo from
Colorado) who came out with a statement that if weapons of mass
destruction were used by people “we” identified as “Islamic
terrorists,” we should respond in kind against Mecca and other Islamic
holy sites. The State Department issued a mild criticism of this
statement, but neither Bush nor Rumsfeld came out and said anything
about how this was wrong. This Congressman, from what I understand, has
refused to back off of this statement, and in fact it seems that he is
being mentioned as a possible candidate for the Republican nomination
for president. Just think soberly about what effect a statement like
that has in the world, and particularly in the Islamic world. For some
guy to make statements like this, who is a representative of the U.S.
government–granted, he’s a congressman, not the president, but he’s a
representative of the U.S. government–talking openly about launching
nuclear attacks, or in any case massive strikes, on Mecca! Do you know
what that means? Do you understand the effect of that in the Islamic
world especially, and do you understand how the Islamic fundamentalists
will seize on that–put it all over the Internet, and everywhere else?
And it’s not repudiated by the president of the United States.
“Why Would ‘They’ Do That?”
Why would they do that–why would “they” take
things to the extreme of replacing bourgeois democracy in the U.S.
itself with an openly despotic, in fact fascist rule, particularly in
the form of a theocratic (Christian Fascist) state? Because the
contradictions in society and the world have given rise to different
forces within the ruling class in the U.S. who perceive the interests
of the system–as they understand that system, and as they understand
those interests–to lie in that direction. They have cohered around
such a program, and they have material factors going with them to a
significant degree. As one significant aspect of this, they are in
accord with the interests of the ruling class broadly, to do away with
the New Deal consensus that started with FDR (Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, who was President of the United States during the Great
Depression of the 1930s and most of World War 2) and the “Great
Society” programs of Lyndon Johnson during the 1960s. With the
heightened globalization and similar factors resulting from the
resolution of the “Cold War,” the ruling class in the U.S. has both a
certain necessity and a certain freedom to abolish these “Great
Society” programs–or what remains of them–and the whole “New Deal”
orientation.6 I have spoken to this and analyzed it more fully elsewhere–for example in Preaching From a Pulpit of Bones and “The Truth About Right-Wing Conspiracy, and Why Clinton and the Democrats Are No Answer.”7
But to speak here to a key aspect of this: In the U.S. today, unbridled
“free market” capitalism goes along with, and is reinforced by, not
only a general emphasis on “personal responsibility”–as opposed to the
recognition of any kind of societal responsibility for the
conditions of the members of society–but, more specifically, this
particular “free market” capitalism is served by the notion that if
people are in difficult and even dire conditions it is because of their
“sinfulness,” and they need to seek salvation through religion, and in
particular religious fundamentalism.
At the same time, the section of the ruling class which is at the
core of power now looks at what they are setting out to do and feels
that this new and extreme kind of cohering and “legitimating” norm is
what is necessary in the new conditions that U.S. imperialism exists
within, in the world, and with the ambitions that they have for U.S.
imperialism in the world–to expand and more thoroughly enforce its
domination in the world. These people (and this was spoken to in
“Right-Wing Conspiracy”) understand that there are centrifugal forces
in U.S. society, forces which really do threaten to pull it apart, and
that if you are going to hold it together while doing what they are
setting out to do in the world, you need a “cohering logic” that is not
only powerful in a general sense but one which has a definite
“absolute” character to it. Look at what’s already happening in Iraq.
They have a real problem with these National Guard members that they’ve
now put through three tours–they’re refusing to let people out of the
military when their time is up. They’re doing everything to avoid a
draft–and doing everything but re-instituting the draft.
In “Right-Wing Conspiracy” it talks about this: There are two major
social phenomena working against this dominant program of the ruling
class–two major phenomena that they have to try to deal with. One is
everything unleashed by the ’60s, which I’ve spoken about–including
whole sections of people in this society who no longer accept the
assumption that it is the right of the U.S. to go marauding in the
world, and that an American life is more valuable than anyone else’s
life–there are large numbers of people, within the U.S. itself, who
question and oppose those assumptions. That’s a real problem if you’re
trying to do what these imperialists are trying to do in the world.
Let’s call that “the ’60s phenomenon” for shorthand. Then you have “the
’90s phenomenon”–all this “gold rush” (get rich quick) shit, and the
extreme individualism that it gave rise to–which doesn’t exactly mesh
neatly with the idea that the “Bushites” are pushing, that people
should sacrifice for the greater societal (i.e. imperialist ruling
class) good. Both these things are working in significant ways against
them.
And then there’s the point that Edward Luttwak makes in the book Turbo Capitalism about
the changing configuration of the population in the U.S. Again, the
change in the production relations, and the change in the family
structure that’s called forth by that, means that you have very few
farm families and generally they are much smaller; you don’t have this
whole group of people that they used to draw much of the military
“grunts” from–large rural and farm families in particular, in
situations where it was convenient to have a lot of “hands,” i.e. kids.
And so, Luttwak points out, in the past when you had a family with six
kids and maybe three sons, in the days when they only put the sons into
the military, which raises another question: what are they going to do
if they re-institute the draft, are they going to draft the women?–that’s
a really tough contradiction for them, they’re in a hard place if they
do and if they don’t–but anyway, now you’ve got families that have
maybe two kids. Well, if you’ve got six kids, it’s not that people
don’t “mind” giving up one for the “greater national good,” but it’s
not quite the same as when you have two children, as Luttwak points
out. It’s a much bigger sacrifice for the family to give up one family
member to die in a war for “the greater national good,” or whatever.
This is another contradiction they’re dealing with: how are you
going to get people to subordinate individualistic inclinations of the
kind that run counter to what these imperialists are trying to do? Not
from a communist standpoint, of course, but from an imperialist
standpoint, how do you get people to “sacrifice for the greater
(imperialist) good”? And how are you going to counter all the
assumptions that came out of the ’60s? You have to create a situation
in which all the foundations from which people oppose these things can
be undermined and eliminated. That’s why, as I’ll talk about later,
there’s a whole attack upon critical thinking and dissent in academia.8 Although academia is not actually a “realm of leftist and communist dictatorship,” unfortunately [laughter],
it is the case that it is a place where a lot of dissent and critical
thinking goes on–and that is part of what is supposed to go on in that
atmosphere as it has existed. You do have broad numbers of professors
who, when the U.S. goes to war, question what they’re doing and expose
the lies. And you have students who are encouraged to do the same. I
don’t know how many of you saw this, but when Noam Chomsky was on Bill
Maher’s show about a year ago, Andrew Sullivan (who is a right-wing
writer, commentator and “pundit,” but not one who generally supports
fanatical religious fundamentalism, even of the Christian Fascist
variety) was also there in the studio while Chomsky appeared via
satellite. And in that kind of a setting Chomsky might not have been as
effective as he is in other situations, where he can expand more on his
points, but he did sort of start off with a bang, so to speak–saying
that what the U.S. did by invading Iraq was a war crime, which of
course it was. Andrew Sullivan just went absolutely bonkers, and
insisted: “you can’t say that.” Essentially he was arguing: “That is
beyond the pale of discussion; you can criticize how we’re handling the
war in Iraq, but you cannot question the underlying assumptions of what
we’re doing, and you cannot question, or raise for discussion, whether
what the U.S. is doing is proceeding from foul rather than fair
motives.”
Academia is where that still does go on. And that’s something
which–from the point of view of the ruling class, and in particular
the section which is bent on undisguised imperialist marauding–has to
be brought under attack. And it is being brought under attack with what
we can now recognize as a worked-out approach, in one sphere of society
after another, particularly on the part of this more fascist and more
openly and unapologetically marauding section of the imperialist ruling
class. Step one: You claim you are being victimized. For example, David
Horowitz comes along and says “conservatives are being discriminated
against in the universities–we need academic fairness.” Along with
this, you promote relativism–for a certain time, within certain
spheres, and for a certain definite purpose. You see this around
evolution, for example: “let’s consider all the different points of
view, let’s not dictate that one of them is true.” Then, when you get
in position, you suppress the points of view that are opposed to your
point of view, and you suppress those who would express those
oppositional points of view. It’s like a familiar dance–one-two-three,
one-two-three–the same strategy over and over: in the media, in the
sphere of science, in the sphere of education, and so on.
This is an attempt to create a “self-contained world” in which there
is no foundation to stand on from which you can call into question, in
any kind of substantial or fundamental way, what is going on, what is
being done on the part of the ruling class. (I’ll speak more, at a
later point, about a crucial aspect of this: what is at least a
“symbiotic” relationship–a mutually beneficial and reinforcing
relationship–between the Christian Fascists and the military.9).
At a minimum, you have to have a force, which is a mindless force, that
can be used as a battering ram and storm troopers to beat down any
attempt at opposition. And what is it that they are forging, with these
Christian Fascists, other than a mindless, unthinking force?
When people took out our Party’s leaflet around the movie “The
Passion of the Christ” and challenged people about all these horrendous
things that are advocated in the Bible, some of the people said, “well,
if that’s what the Bible says, I guess that’s what we have to do.”10 What does that translate into, politically, when that’s organized behind a reactionary political agenda?
So, you have a section of the ruling class that’s identifying and
proceeding from its conception of these contradictions and how they
have to be dealt with. We should understand this. William Kristol is a
major figure in all this, has major entree into and influence in the
highest levels of government, and he was cited in “Right-Wing
Conspiracy” saying, flat out: If we cannot succeed in outlawing
abortion in the U.S., we will have failed as a conservative movement.
What do you think that means?
Why would they do that? Because this particular and now very powerful “they” see this as the way things have to go.
Now what about the other side of the pyramid–at the top of the
pyramid–the side generally represented by the Democratic Party? Right
now, it’s mainly characterized by backpedaling and paralysis in
relation to the “conservatives” (or, as we have quite rightly pointed
out: “Conservatives, My Ass–These People are NAZIS!”). But there are
bigger dynamics at play in the world. There is the whole world
situation and what the imperialists–driven by this core right now
grouped around Bush–see the need to do. But it is interesting,
somebody was recounting how one of these essentially fascist
theoreticians (I think it was Paul Weyrich) was talking about how they
have to look beyond Bush to a post-Bush conservatism–and start
thinking in terms of changing the way the state functions in this
society. These people think strategically. And what do you think that
means: changing the way the state functions? Partly it’s a
pseudo-libertarian notion, but it also partly, and essentially, has to
do with this whole fascist program.
Still, there are larger things going on in the world. Iraq did not
go the way that they expected it to go. In fact, it’s interesting that
the Clinton administration, apparently, had reviewed all the options
with regard to attacking Iraq and doing what the Bush administration
did; but it seems Clinton and Co. rejected the idea because they could
not come up with a viable “exit strategy.” Very interesting in light of
what’s happening now. And yet, it is true, from the imperialists’
standpoint, they can’t just get up and leave Iraq. That would cause
all kinds of problems for them and unleash and encourage all kinds of
opposition forces, including crazy, fanatical forces–people who are
the mirror image of them. So they can’t let go in Iraq either, but
things are not proceeding as they had expected. Now, how is that going
to continue reverberating back within the U.S. and in terms of struggle
within the ruling class? That’s a question that’s at play in a
significant way.
Then there’s the question of what the struggle of the people
does–throughout the world, but in particular within the U.S.–and how that has
repercussions within the ruling class. We can think here of the
dialectical back and forth between the top and the bottom of the
pyramid. Here we can draw a certain analogy, although it’s a limited
one, to the experience of the opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq.
Specifically, during the build-up to this war, in 2002 and in early
2003, there was the back and forth between mass resistance in countries
all over the world, on the one hand, and the opposition to U.S. war
moves on the part of the ruling classes of rival imperialist powers,
such as France, Germany, and Russia, on the other hand. And this is
something of an analogy to a point I want to speak to here–what
happens at the base of the pyramid, if you will, and how that
dialectically relates back and forth to what’s happening at the top of
the pyramid, on both sides. It should be noted, however, in the case of
this example I’m speaking of–the U.S. build-up to the Iraq war, the
opposition to the U.S. war moves and the picture as a whole leading
into this war–that things were reversed from what we need in this
situation we are now confronting; because, as important as the mass
resistance was–to the build-up of this war and at the beginning of
this war–and as much as it really did affect what those rival
imperialist ruling classes were doing (in France, Germany, Russia, and
so on), they were still acting more out of concern and calculation in
terms of their own imperialist interests, in conflict with those of the
U.S., than they were being forced to act because of the “pressure”
being objectively exerted by the mass outpourings, in their countries
and all over the world, against the U.S. moves to war against Iraq.11
What we need in the present situation is the development of a mass
movement so widespread and so powerful that every force in society is
compelled to respond to this movement and the demands it is raising.
Now, just to be clear, what I’m talking about, what is being
posited, and what I’m calling for, is not developing a mass movement
whose purpose is to pressure the Democrats to put up more resistance on
their side of the pyramid so we can have a civil war out of which we
can make revolution. No. There is a crucial difference between “pressuring the Democrats” through mass mobilization and, in fundamental opposition to that, mobilizing masses to take independent historical action, politically.
As for our Party, we are seeking to unite, and working to unite, with a
broad range of diverse forces which have many different views in terms
of what should come out of all this. And (as I have spoken to in a
number of talks and writings, and will come back to again) we are very
seriously committed to the objective of radically changing the
political situation and rupturing things onto a radically different and
more favorable political trajectory, even short of revolution. At the
same time, yes, from our perspective we are strategically approaching
all this from the standpoint of repolarizing things toward the overall strategic goal
of revolution (just as others, with different views and programs, are
striving to transform the political terrain in line with their,
differing, overall and larger objectives). However, it is a fact that
the more that mass resistance does develop in the form of masses taking
independent historical political action, that will have ramifications
within the ruling class, including on “the Democrats’ side of the
pyramid,” so to speak; this will have significant impact on, and can
change, the dynamic that’s presently at play. It won’t just “give the
Democrats more backbone”–nor, obviously, is that the purpose, at least
not from our point of view. It will cause contradictory effects on the
different groupings within the ruling class. But if there is a truly
mass outpouring of resistance, this will have an effect up to the top
of the pyramid of power, and back down again–and we have to understand
these dynamics and not think in linear and static terms.
Another way in which we have to understand the motion of things as
they are actually developing, and not in stereotypical terms, is that
when you talk about a civil war between two sections of society, if you
will, what is presently shaping up, and the basic dividing line, is not
between communism and revolution as we embody that and are
striving for it, on the one side, vs. everybody opposed to that on the
other side. That would be a very bad polarization right now. There is a
different polarization that is affecting society and is expressing
itself. There is a broad polarization which has been described in
various ways. Pat Buchanan spoke to it, as I referred to earlier. It’s
a real thing, and it does continually assert itself. It was spoken to
by Ron Suskind12
in that New York Times article: the reality-based vs. the faith-based
communities. This interpenetrates with ruling class divisions, but is
by no means identical to that. And the fact is, if this is left to its
“own devices”–if this dynamic and trajectory that’s presently at play
is left as it is, and if we don’t intervene by playing a significant
part in mobilizing masses and making a material force of our line in
relation to this–the outcome of this is almost certainly bound to be very negative and, very likely, very one-sided, including if there is civil war for real, if it becomes literal civil war.
Things Are Going to Extremes
Another thing some people say (even some people who consider
themselves Marxists), in an effort (conscious or not) to avoid facing
squarely what is going on and what the stakes are, is that maybe the
imperialists can just “muddle on through this.” Now, especially for
someone who considers herself or himself a Marxist, or an
anti-imperialist, to say this amounts to saying: “Why don’t we help them muddle on through.” Because the fact is that they will “muddle on through”–or much worse –if
we don’t do what we’re called on to do. There could easily be a very
one-sided resolution of the very deep conflicts in society. This
depends on a lot of factors, including international factors. Now, it’s
not impossible that a different section of the ruling class could come
forward and cohere and get more backbone, but “the odds favor”–and the
way things are going now, they are pointing to–a one-sided conflict
within the ruling class, and the continuation of the present dynamic.
And, as for those people who are on the “reality-based” side of things,
those who are on the progressive side of things (and these groupings
overlap to a significant degree, although are not identical), so long
as they continue looking to a section of the ruling class for
“leadership,” and so long as they go along with the spontaneity of
things, they are going to be left leaderless, and to an
overwhelming degree unable to recognize the profundity and the stakes
of what’s involved and what’s in motion, and unable to rise to the
occasion. So, if you say, “what if the imperialists can muddle on
through?–let’s not do something that would provoke them”– you are actually favoring what is objectively the absolute worst resolution of this:
that those who rule this system go to negative extremes, armed to the
teeth with nuclear weapons, and there’s no significant opposition to
it. That would be absolutely the worst resolution of this situation,
and that is what will happen if we decide to allow them “to muddle on
through,” in the name of not provoking something worse!
The reality is–and it is crucial for people to grasp this–that
even if we don’t provoke them, they are going to the extreme with this
program. What more evidence do you need? Read the mainstream press,
watch the mainstream media, day after day. To cite here just one
crucial dimension of this, they are trying to redefine the definition
of science–to include religion right within the definition of
science–on a societal level. You think that’s just going to stay in a
little small, confined sphere, in terms of its influence?
And, yes, if things go in a more two-sided way, if there are more
positive forces in motion, if there is greater resistance to this whole
direction–and if we do our work correctly–there will be many
contradictory things in the picture. Many people will enter into
objectively important, even historical, independent political action
with many different understandings and perspectives on what this is all
about and where it all has to go. But it is our responsibility to do
everything we can to build this in the most powerful way and to
strengthen the unity that is developed in opposition to this whole
direction, with the common objective of transforming the political
terrain and bringing forward so powerful a movement of political
resistance that every force in society will have to respond to it. And
it is our responsibility, as communists, to bring forward our own
strategic revolutionary objectives in the correct way in relation to
that, so that the distinction is clear between our
revolutionary objectives and, on the other hand, the objectives of this
mass movement of resistance, while at the same time the unity is
strengthened among a growing and increasingly diverse array of
political forces, including our Party, who share the common objective
of transforming the political terrain in a positive way, in determined
opposition to the current disastrous direction. Once again, from our overall
and strategic perspective, the answer that is required, the resolution
that is necessary in relation to all this, is revolution and the
bringing into being of a radically different and better society, a
socialist society, and ultimately a communist world. And, in the
appropriate ways, we must boldly bring forward that perspective, as the
viewpoint of our Party. But, at the same time, once again, we must also
keep clearly in mind, and make clear to others, the very definite
distinction between that and what is, and must be, the basis of unity
of the movement of truly massive political resistance that must be
built, bringing together a broad diversity of political forces, with
many differing views on where the ultimate solution to this lies.
One very important point to grasp and come to terms with, in the context of all this, is the fundamental fact that we are not “setting the agenda ”
of what is going on in the society and the world. We do not get to sit
around and choose when and how things become acutely posed. We do not
get to put in a request to the New York Times to stop running articles
that give grist to the mill of the Discovery Institute, in attacking
evolution–that’s out of our control, overwhelmingly. We can effect
what happens with that, but we’re not setting this agenda. The dynamic
that is in play now is not one we have chosen–this gets back to
necessity and freedom–it’s not one we have chosen, but the reality of
it, and the pace of it, is what we have to deal with, to confront and
radically transform it, if we are going to be what we are called on to
be, and do what we are called on to do.
We need to be very clear, and we need to struggle in a good way
with others to win them to understand, that there will in fact be no “pendulum swing,” back to “the center” of bourgeois politics and bourgeois rule. And if there were, we must ask: what after all is represented by that “center,” that politics, and that rule
? There is no “self-correcting mechanism in the system”
to keep it from going to extremes, whether you want it to or not. It’s
interesting that even a member of the Congressional Black Caucus spoke
to this at one of these rallies that was held around the Downing Street
Memo13; he got up and he said: Listen, some of you think there’s a referee up there somewhere–there’s not. [laughter]
It is noteworthy that someone coming from that position was able and
willing, at least on a certain level, to recognize and acknowledge
this. There is no self-correcting mechanism in this system that will
keep it from going to these extremes. And, let us never
forget, for most of the world, what presently exists actually
represents, and subjects them to, great extremes of oppression,
exploitation, agony, misery, devastation and destruction, of themselves
and of the environment–which, yes, can become even worse but which are
never anything but a horror for the great majority. Look around the
world.
So in this light I have two things to say to those who insist that,
“if we can just keep things from going to extremes, if we can somehow
keep things in the general framework where they have been, then things
will be alright.” First, a question: Precisely looking at the alignment
of things right now and the dynamics in society and among the
powers-that-be, on what do you base the possibility of “keeping things
the way they are”? Where do you see the forces who are going to do even
that–are you looking to the “liberals” among the
powers-that-be, the “liberal” imperialists? Sorry, but let’s be real!
Second, and more fundamentally, it is NOT alright to
have the world, including U.S. society, stay as they are and have been:
To accept that would be to accept the horrors daily visited on the
great majority of humanity, including the acute oppression and misery
of tens of millions in the U.S. itself.
To want the world “to stay as it is,” out of fear of extremes and/or
“the cost” of trying to change things in any kind of essential way, is,
at a minimum, to objectively acquiesce to these horrors–to accept and
go along with them, even if you don’t like them and wish they could
somehow be eliminated without great cost and without things “going to extremes.” This is bad enough for anyone to do, and for communists to
do this would be worse than acquiescence–it would be capitulation and
betrayal of everything communists are supposed to, and must in fact,
stand for, and fight for. We have to confront the reality that things are heading
to extremes. Yes, they could head to extremes with a minimum of civil
conflict and civil war–and that would once again be the worst outcome,
because it would mean there would be no real opposition to this. But
things, one way or another, are heading to extremes, and the answer to
this is not to seek to avoid this, or to try to live in denial of it,
but to rise to the challenge of doing everything possible to actually
determine the direction in which things will go and the character of
how all this will get resolved.
So let us be clear once again: Whether or not we do anything, things are already, and increasingly will be,
going to extremes–and this can only be in a very negative way if we
don’t do anything. And that relates to the fact that–well, let’s just
put it baldly–if we so decided, we could in effect guarantee that
there is only one extreme direction in which things can go:
the negative, extremely negative, extreme in which they are already
heading, in a rapid and even accelerating way.
*****
In concluding this section of this talk, let me just say,
specifically from the point of view of those of us who are communists,
that, yes, it is true, if we do everything we are called on to do, and
rise in the fullest way to the challenges we face, we could be defeated
and things could still go to the negative extremes toward which they
are now headed. But the point is that if we do what we are called on to
do, there will be a chance–not any guarantee but a chance–that things
could get ruptured and vaulted onto a different, much more positive
trajectory and dynamic, and even a possibility–again, not any
certainty or guarantee but a possibility–that, out of this whole
“cauldron of contradictions,” a revolutionary opening could
emerge–yes, right within “the belly of the beast.” IF WE DO WHAT WE ARE CALLED ON TO DO!
We must confront, unflinchingly, the situation and the stakes–and
not only the negative but the positive potential in this. We must
recognize–and not try to hide from, or run away from–the possibility of very negative developments and even of real catastrophe; but we must also recognize the positive possibility–the
possibility even of the opening to go for revolution, a possibility
that is all too rare, particularly in a country like this, a
possibility that it would be a crime, of historic proportions, not to
politically prepare for and not to seize on if the chance arose.
NOTES:
1. See The Coming Civil War and Repolarization for Revolution in the Present Era (Chicago: RCP Publications, 2005), particularly the article “There
is No ‘They’–But There Is a Definite Direction to Things: The Dynamics
Within the Ruling Class, and the Challenges for Revolutionaries.” (Also available online at revcom.us)
2. See “Elections, Resistance, and Revolution: The Pyramid of Power and the Struggle To Turn This Whole Thing Upside Down,” Revolutionary Worker #1237 (April 25, 2004). This article is a transcription of an answer to a question following Bob Avakian’s speech Revolution: Why It’s Necessary, Why It’s Possible, What It’s All About (Chicago: Three Q Productions, 2004).
3. See The Coming Civil War and Repolarization for Revolution in the Present Era (Chicago: RCP Publications, 2005), particularly the article “The Fascists and the Destruction of the ‘Weimar Republic’…And What Will Replace It.” (Also available online at revcom.us)
4. In “The Truth About Right-wing Conspiracy….And Why Clinton and the Democrats Are No Answer” (Revolutionary Worker #1255
[October 17, 2004], available online at revcom.us), Bob Avakian
analyzed what was going on with the drive to oust Clinton (which led to
his impeachment, though not his removal from office) and important
factors and dynamics underlying this move against Clinton.
5. Larry Everest, “The Rise of the Christian Fascists: The Specter of a U.S. Theocracy and Why the People Must Stop It,” Revolutionary Worker #1263 (December 26, 2004).
6. The New Deal was a series of programs brought
forward under Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the period before World War
2, that included concessions to workers (like recognizing unions). The
“Great Society” was a term used by President Lyndon Johnson for a set
of programs that included the “war on poverty” and concessions to the
Civil Rights Movement, including the Voting Rights Act that removed
some overt barriers to Black people voting. Both these packages
represented a general consensus in the ruling class–even while there
was significant opposition to them within the power structure. The New
Deal was implemented in response to the Great Depression and the need
to shore up the capitalist system in the midst of that profound
economic crisis. The Great Society was a response by the system to the
civil rights and Black liberation movements and the overall social
upheavals of the 1960s.
7. Bob Avakian, Preaching From a Pulpit of Bones: We Need Morality But Not Traditional Morality (New York: Banner Press, 1999) and “The Truth About Right-wing Conspiracy….And Why Clinton and the Democrats Are No Answer,” Revolutionary Worker #1255 (October 17, 2004). Excerpts from this book and the full article “The Truth About…” are available online at revcom.us
8. Bob Avakian discusses the attack on critical
thinking and dissent, particularly in academia, in the next set of
excerpts in this series, “Polarization…Repolarization…and
Revolution.”
9. This is discussed in a later excerpt in this series: “The Christian Fascists and the U.S. Military.”
10. This leaflet, “A Passion–for Plunder and Slaughter,” a statement on the movie The Passion of the Christ from the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA, New York Branch, was published in Revolutionary Worker #1231 (March 7, 2004). An article reporting on experience in taking out the leaflet, “Protesting the Crimes of Passion,” appeared in Revolutionary Worker #1232 (March 14, 2004). Available online at revcom.us
11. Footnote by Bob Avakian: Here, by the way, we
can see how the addiction to the notion of “classless democracy” gets
the better of some progressive people: A number of them have said
things like, “in these other countries the governments responded more
to the people, there was more democracy in those countries, whereas, in
the U.S. there was no democracy.” But that’s not essentially
what was going on. What was essentially going on–the principal aspect
of things, for example, in terms of what happened at the UN and the way
the U.S. was denied a “mandate” from the UN for invading Iraq in
2003–was the rival interests of these different imperialists being
expressed. At the same time, however, there was a
significant element of the mass outpourings within those other
imperialist countries, and worldwide, including in the U.S., which did
have an influence on and affected what these ruling classes (of the
other imperialist countries) had to do. They did have to respond to
this mass outpouring. It was not an irrelevant factor, even though it
wasn’t the decisive and determining factor.
12. This refers to the article by Ron Suskind, “Without a Doubt, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush,” in the New York Times Magazine (October 17, 2004).
13. The “Downing Street Memo” came out of a secret
meeting of British government officials, and revealed that
“intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”–proving
that the U.S. government was lying, not just basing itself on “faulty
intelligence,” when it claimed Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction”
and other factors that were supposedly the reasons for the invasion of
Iraq.
Editors Note: The following are excerpts drawn from a
talk given by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist
Party, to a group of Party members and supporters in 2005. This has
been edited for publication here, and subheads and footnotes have been
added.
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolution Online
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497