Capitalism’s Counter-Attack
- This topic has 14 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It seems without the ideological red scare of the Soviet Union, the capitalist apologists are now re-positioning their arguments.
“America is fundamentally good, and has much to offer the world, because our founders recognized the existence of God-given unalienable rights, and designed a durable system to protect them,” Pompeo said. “As the report emphasises, foremost among these rights are property rights and religious liberty. No one can enjoy ‘the pursuit of happiness’ if you can’t own the fruits of your labor! And no society can retain its legitimacy – or a virtuous character – without religious freedom. Our founders knew faith was also essential to nurture the private virtue of our citizens.”
We know when he says “No one can enjoy ‘the pursuit of happiness’ if you can’t own the fruits of your labor” he doesn’t mean labour itself but the owners of labour.
“he repeatedly attacked the New York Times, accusing it of purveying Marxist ideology.”
That sort of thing might go down well in the “exceptional” (exceptionally backward on religion) USA but will be laughed out of court here and in the rest of Europe.
As to the “fruits of labour” argument, that can easily be turned into an argument for socialism.
So if that’s the best counter-attack that defenders of capitalism can come up with, bring it on. We have nothing to be afraid of.
Amnesty International USA said:
“The U.S. government cannot unilaterally redefine which human rights will be respected and which will be ignored.
“The U.S. State Department’s effort to cherry-pick rights in order to deny some their human rights is a dangerous political stunt that could spark a race to the bottom by human rights-abusing governments around the world.
“The administration is seeking to create a hierarchy of rights, where it gets to decide which rights are ‘unalienable’ and which rights are what it calls in the report ‘divisive social and political controversies,’ a category which predictably includes sexual and reproductive rights and LGBTI rights.
“Human rights are not a choose-your-own-adventure in which the U.S. government gets to pick a different ending because it doesn’t like a particular set of rights. This report, made through an illegitimate process, only further shows the contempt this administration has for human rights and its desire to excise certain rights.”
https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/unalieablaerightscomissionreport/
But i think this overlooks the relevance of the new US declaration. It isn’t about an individual’s human or civil rights. Its all about a new political campaign by the right-wing to polarise public opinion. They are resorting to pander to their perceived political base – and as you say – in the US its the Christian right. I’m sure it won’t be about offering increased religious liberty to Muslims.
And of course they also seek to appeal to the libertarians – or as they should be called – the propertarians. Certainly they won’t be strengthening the trade unions so that they can extract a bit more of the surplus value stolen from them or even acknowledge that workers are the source of the fruits of labour, something even Abe Lincoln had to concede.
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
“The world is agreed that labor is the source from which human wants are mainly supplied. There is no dispute upon this point.”
“If at any time all labour should cease, and all existing provisions be equally divided among the people, at the end of a single year there could scarcely be one human being left alive—all would have perished by want of subsistence.”
“Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn.”
“And I am glad to know that there is a system of labor – where the laborer can strike if he wants to! I would to God that such a system prevailed all over the world.”
“And, inasmuch as most good things are produced by labour, it follows that all such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.”
Rudy Giuliani –
“This is not — please, understand this — this is not isolated. This is not spontaneous. This is planned. This is planned by Black Lives Matter, it’s funded by [George] Soros to the tune of $30 to $40 million. And the plan is to change your government. To take it away from you. To take away from you a government based on free enterprise. To take away from you your Second Amendment right to bear arms. To take away from you, really, your right to have a religion. Soros is a notorious atheist. Proclaims the fact that he’s an atheist. So are Marxists, by the way. It’s one of the cores of Marxism, atheism.
And one of the cores of Marxism is no private property. They want your property. They want the government to control it. But they do want one preferred class and that’s the people who are — they’re going to get, like, a lifetime salary. And that’s going to be — Black people will get that. And they’ll also get to choose property that they want, and that’s the reparations for slavery. Except it’ll include Black people that came from the Caribbean. And it’s going to get paid by white people who never had anything to do with slavery.”
“Amazing I have to inform you of the extreme Marxist agenda of BLM. It is fairly described as a Marxist violence promoting spewing hatred for America, it’s history, it’s founders, it’s ideal of nuclear marriage, it’s private ownership of property and an end to policing and the virtual end of the military… There’s so much more on their Marxist plan to overthrow our form of government but it begins with getting us to hate America … it’s founder, liberator, the author of our liberty. But when has become an apologist for a cause or organization no chance …”
“Marxists are never consistent. The party people become wealthy. Here Blacks are the preferred class they get life time salary, no one else, and they can claim property. So let’s call it bastardized Marxism as it always is.”
Of course his pathetic attempt to play the anti-cahmmunist card probably won’t find much of an echo these days, but unfortunately his view that blacks can only advance at the expense of non-blacks will.
In so far as demanding an equal distribution of unemployment and the other things workers suffer from under capitalism is a demand of the BLM, there is some truth in his claim. For example, since capitalism requires a given rate of unemployment and if (as is the case) there is a higher than average rate amongst black people this anomaly, injustice or whatever you want to call it can only be rectified under capitalism by making more non-blacks unemployed. The same goes for bad housing, ill-health, etc.
The BLM is good as a general expression of the fact that black people are of equal worth but the moment it gets involved in reformist demands for equalising poverty, quotas, reparations etc it opens a can of worms by allowing the likes of Giuliani to play the “white card”, unfortunately, I fear, to some effect.
The only way out of this dilemma is, quite literally, socialism. If the BLM embraces that they would justifiably be able to be labelled Marxist.
The white card it seems includes whipping up the fears of white surburbia that there will be an influx of non-whites from the inner city. So according to Trump
“Joe Biden and his bosses from the radical left want to significantly multiply what they’re doing now. And what will be the end result is you will totally destroy the beautiful suburbs. Suburbia will be no longer as we know it…. The suburb destruction will end with us.” He added, “Our plan is to protect the suburbs from being obliterated by Washington Democrats, by people on the far Left that want to see the suburbs destroyed — that don’t care. People who have worked all their lives to get into a community and now they’re going to watch it go to hell.”
Exactly what is to be expected. Those who play the black card should remember that it can always be trumped by the white one, if only because there are so many more. It’s what minority IdiotPol inevitably risks. The card to play is the worker’s card.
“Those who play the black card”
Not so sure about the implication of those words. Are African-Americans and the black minorities in many other countries being played?
Couldn’t such inference give support to the Soros-type conspiracies that BLM and what appears to be genuine grassroots resistance are that they are being manipulated by outsiders “playing the black card”
Whereas we do witness politicians and media feeding white peoples racial fears, deliberately “playing the white card”
But Libcom had a link to an interesting story that there is a black flight to the better-off suburbs and resentment against the newcomers from racists.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11829316/the-hidden-toll-of-californias-black-exodus
But aren’t reformist politicians and Trotskyist infiltrators playing the “black card”, respectively to get votes and hi-jack the movement?
How can we as socialists take sides between two sections of the working class? We have no alternative but to assert the common interest of the working class irrespective of language, state nationality or skin colour.
I’ve noticed that a big theme on the right at the moment is to call everything Marxist. There is even an article that has been dredged up from the Spectator from about 10 years ago where Boris Johnson referred to the banning of fox hunting as a being part of a “Marxian agenda” (perhaps BoJo should have researched Engels’ view on that particular “pastime”).
For someone who the pro capitalists claimed to have buried so many times, the ghost of old Karl certainly seems to still fill their very bones with dread and horror.
The spectre that once haunted Europe appears to have travelled a little further.
How can we as socialists take sides between two sections of the working class?
But we do take sides, don’t we?
We are on the side of those who are oppressed particularly if it is because of the colour of their skin.
We oppose racism and we are against racists regardless if they are members of the working class as they invariably are.
We also support those who protest and resist the brutality of the coercive agents of the State such as the various police departments and the National Guard.
Do we debate if African-Americans are generally discriminated against? Do we question if such a thing such as white supremacy exists?
Indeed, as you point out, we always face the reality that self-appointed interests try to steer and direct workers’ movements. It doesn’t lead to us disassociating ourselves with them or withdrawing our sympathies.
We do have an important role in explaining the links to capitalism and the class-nature of our society and how racial differences are used to divide and rule. But need we distance ourselves from those who seek to protest their conditions by suggesting that racist workers are comparable.
I was referring to the situation if a conflict should develop between two sections of the working class over eg jobs and crumbs that fall from the capitalists’ table.
Obviously we are not against, even welcome and support, movements for equal respect and civil rights for any group of workers denied them. And we combat racism and racist attitudes via meetings, leaflets and pamphlets as a party and as individuals calling out work colleagues and relatives who express or entertain them.
Where we draw the line is when such movements demand social reforms for their group only such as quotas, positive discrimination, reparations, etc. How can we support such sectional demands any more than we can defend the position of a section that already benefits from some?
Since we are committed to defending the interests of the working class as a whole there is no way we can support the demands of one section against another or take sides in such sectional disputes.
Cheers for the clarification. But i will continue the debate because i think it is an important one to have
I still wonder if calling for a level playing field or supporting catch-up policies is as sectional as you suggest – sectional meaning it is divisive and that it strengthens one part of our fellow-workers at the expense of another, weakening them.
We do suggest in our goal that resources should be distributed according to needs and groups and individuals needs are different and require to be addressed differently. Some of us say these needs should be self-defined – although such an expression has issues as we have discussed on the forum elsewhere. Self-defined but subject to society’s criteria.
Isn’t positive discrimination and quotas about addressing that ongoing and persistent disadvantage that has arisen from past policies? Rectifying misdeeds.
Historically, some social reforms which are empowering or beneficial such as education and health (even the ability to vote) in the USA has benefited only a section of the working class – white folk – and disproportionately been detrimental to another section – African Americans – with the effects actually apparent on a wide variety of metrics.
I know there are many poor whites just as deserving of amelioration, just as there were poor Afrikaaners in apartheid South Africa but the sectionalism came from the State just so that it could divide and rule.
Reparations can easily be seen as mere re-distribution of poverty but government expenditure comes from the taxation of the capitalists’ wealth, so isn’t it their burden. Isn’t it making the capitalist class retrospectively pay for a part of their slice of surplus value extracted from the black community. But, of course, some capitalists will try to reimburse themselves with cuts in other parts of government spending. We see that even now.
Isn’t it for workers as a whole, regardless of colour, to ensure, that there is resistance to austerity cuts?
But i think the real problem is whites resenting reparations for blacks but the reparations understandably expected by the Latino and Native American population too who as Marcos often reminds us had vast areas of territory invaded and stolen from their ancestors.
It may seem from the above, i am arguing in favour of reformist demands but what i’m saying is that our analysis must be nuanced to not appear denying or dismissing the extra-special suffering and misery experienced by particular members of our class.
What our approach has to be is not to argue that reparations or whatever are sectional but that they are simply not going to be achievable other than by some token gestures in the form of programs such as quotas and positive discrimination and those palliatives will be very limited and full of loop-holes and gaps.
The capitalist class will never pay the full cost of their predecessors past crimes.
We need to explain our case that permanent restitution can only be feasible with socialism and a totally new way of compensation for historic mistreatment.
We have to express our sympathies and solidarity in the clearest manner possible, acknowledging that some remedial amelioration can be taken such as reducing racial profiling, while at the same time counselling a different course of corrective action for real social change, that people identify with the one unifying characteristic we all share – wage-slavery, whether black or white or brown, unskilled or skilled, male or female, short or tall, impoverished or even relatively prosperous.
Let us talk of slavery and how it has never ended.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/19/trump-2020-joe-biden-extreme-left
the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the National Harbor near Washington in February. Its official theme was “America v socialism” and the agenda included sessions such as “Socialism: Wrecker of Nations and Destroyer of Societies” and “Prescription for Failure: The Ills of Socialised Medicine”
“The idea of trying to portray Joe Biden as somebody who is either an empty vessel for the left or in cahoots with the far left makes a lot of sense to me. We’ll have to see how effective the attack is, but I think it is the best available play in the playbook.”
“The radical leftwing mob’s agenda? Take over our cities. Defund the police. Pressure more towns to follow. And Joe Biden stands with them.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.