The U.S. has elected a new president.
On January 20, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn in as the
44th President of the United States. Along with the
dramatic turn in the economic situation, this marks a definite
turning point in the history of the country and of the world. On the
streets across the U.S., you can feel a collective sigh of relief.
Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people are on the streets of New
York, Chicago, St. Louis and San Francisco, many of them dancing and
even crying with joy. Young people drive by or ride their bikes
through the streets yelling "Obama!" at passersby. Some have
likened the celebration to New Year’s Eve, and people’s faces –
especially young people and African-Americans – are glowing. These
scenes have been repeated around the world, as frustration against
Bush’s policies is unleashed. The world has not been a very pleasant
place for the last 8 years.
Obama says he offers "a new kind of
politics." This inspired record turnouts in many states and
five-hour lines at some polling stations. A spirit of hope and
history filled the air throughout the day. It is indeed a historic
event. For the first time, an African-American has been elected
president of the most powerful nation on the planet. However, the
election of a Black president does not mean that racism has been
eliminated. Far from it. Racism is a
product of the capitalist system and will
continue as long as the system continues.
But Obama’s victory does show that
Americans are so fed up with Bush and co.’s policies, that even those
with racist prejudices would rather vote for a "Black man" than a
Republican. For Marxists, it’s not the color of the President’s skin
that determines our attitude. What matters are the class interests a
candidate represents. Illusions in Obama are high at the moment, but
it’s no accident that he raised far more corporate money than John
McCain or that world stock markets have risen on news of his victory.
He is Big Businesses’ choice to get them through the tough times
ahead. Nonetheless, within the confines of the current U.S. electoral
setup, his decisive victory represents a significant and healthy
shift to the left.
Exit polls taken during election night
offer a snapshot of the current mood in America: 37 percent change
said "change" was the number one issue on their minds. 79 percent
think the country is going in the wrong direction. 68 percent of new
voters, 66 percent of Latinos, and 90 percent of African-Americans
voted for Obama. People who had previously never had any interest in
politics suddenly felt they had something worth voting and hitting
the streets for. Such was the support and enthusiasm he inspired on
the campaign trail, that had Obama won the popular vote, yet lost the
electoral vote, and therefore the election itself, there would have
undoubtedly been unrest on the streets.
Film maker Michael Moore calls it the
end of 28 years of rule by Republicans and Democrats who act like
Republicans. At long last! The Bush years of war, terrorism, Enron,
Katrina, domestic spying, mass layoffs and off shoring, raids and
deportations of immigrant workers, attacks on the unions and
declining living conditions are over! Or are they?
As we have explained time and again, on
all fundamentals, Obama represents the same interests as Bush and
McCain. The only real difference is greater his charm, eloquence and
intellect. A cunning politician who knows full well whose interests
he has been elected to defend, he will, like Bill Clinton before him,
be used to carry out attacks on the working class that even the
Bushes couldn’t get away with – albeit with a warm smile on his
face and a charming twinkle in his eye. Obama was above all elected
on the basis of what people want to see in him, not what he
really represents. "Hope" and "change" are powerful words in
these times of turmoil and uncertainty. But sooner rather than later,
Obama’s true colors will be revealed. He may be riding high for the
moment, and millions of people are elated, but we can predict that in
the not-too-distant future, increasing numbers of his supporters will
begin to feel confused and betrayed, bitterly disappointed, and then
angry. They will be looking for answers and a way out of the crisis
that still confronts them, and will be increasingly open to the ideas
of revolutionary Marxism and socialism.
Economic turmoil
The most important issue on American
voters’ minds is the economy. No wonder. The instability on the stock
market is having a very real and very immediate effect on the real
economy and on the lives of working people, who will be the ones who
suffer for the crisis of the system. It’s always the same: during the
boom times, the rich benefit, and during the hard times, working
people and the poor have to foot the bill and tighten their belts
even further.
The housing market has collapsed,
trillions of dollars have been wiped off the stock market, and the
official unemployment rate – kept artificially low by changes in
the way data is reported – is now 6.1 percent, the highest it has
been since just after September 11, 2001. When you count the
long-term unemployed and the under-employed, the real figure is far
higher. The economy lost 159,000 jobs in September alone, the biggest
loss since March 2003. The economy has now lost 760,000 jobs since
January, not including October. When you consider that the economy
must generate 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with the
growing workforce, the picture is even worse. According to Nigel
Gault, chief domestic economist at Global Insight: "My view is that
[unemployment] will be near 8 or 8.5 percent by the end of next
year." That would be the highest unemployment rate since the
recession of the early 1980s.
In just the last two weeks, the
following companies have announced mass layoffs: Merck, Yahoo,
General Electric, Xerox, Pratt & Whitney, Goldman Sachs,
Whirlpool, Bank of America, Alcoa, Coca-Cola, all the Detroit
automakers and nearly all the airlines. In September alone, 2,269
employers announced mass layoffs, which means they fired 50 or more
employees at a time. This was up sharply from the spring and summer,
and was the highest number since September 2001. The financial
services industry has been cutting jobs since last summer, when the
credit crisis started. By some estimates, 300,000 jobs will disappear
from banks and other financial services companies. Just a few months
ago, these were considered "safe" white collar jobs.
Up until now, it was unclear as to whether or not the country had
formally entered a recession. Now it seems clear. One technical
definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of shrinking
Gross Domestic Product. GDP, the main measure of a country’s economic
health, shrank by 0.3 percent in the July-September quarter, the
worst since the same period in 2001. That marks a steep decline when
compared to the 2.8 percent growth in the April-June quarter. Most
economists predict an even steeper decline in the 4th
quarter. In the words of Brian Bethune, economist at IHS global
Insight: "The train went off the tracks." And in the words of
Robert Macintosh, chief economist at Eaton Vance Corp in Boston:
"Pretty grim. It means we’re in a recession, it’s as simple as that
… a pretty solid manufacturing recession. The question is, ‘How
long or deep is it going to be?’"
Manufacturing, the backbone of any
industrialized economy, has also taken a dramatic hit. The Institute
for Supply Management’s measure of manufacturing activity plummeted
to 38.9 in October, down from 43.5 in September. Anything below 50
indicates contraction. Again, this was the lowest reading since
September, 2001. Only this time it wasn’t a terrorist attack that
pushed an already weak economy over the edge, as was the case 7 years
ago. This time it is the direct result of a profound crisis of the
capitalist system itself.
Consumer spending, which accounts for
70 percent of economic activity in the country, has now run out of
gas. Much of this spending was based on unprecedented levels of
indebtedness and mortgages based on rising house prices, and this
borrowed money must now be paid back – with interest. Americans’
disposable income fell by 8.7 percent in the third quarter, the
largest since records began back in 1947. U.S. consumers have now cut
back on spending by 3.1 percent in the third quarter, the first
decline in 7 years and the biggest fall in 28 years. The Conference
Board has said that the consumer confidence index fell to 38 in
October, down from 61.4 in September. This is the steepest drop since
1973 and the lowest level for the index since they began tracking
consumer sentiment in 1967. To put things into perspective, a year
ago, the index stood at 95.2. Today it’s at 38.
Businesses have cut back on
spending as well. Homebuilders slashed spending by 19.1 percent, the
11th straight quarterly cutback, and business spending on equipment
and software was cut by 5.5, the most since the first quarter of
2002. The global economic crisis has also meant fewer orders for
goods produced in the U.S. New export orders fell to their lowest
level since records began in 1988, ending 70 consecutive months of
growth. Auto sales plunged to near 25-year lows in October, with
General Motors Corp sales falling by an incredible 45 percent. And
here is an incredible figure: The U.S. steel industry has 29 blast
furnaces, which supply steel to many key sectors of the economy. Now
17 – over half – of these are going to be shut down. This will
mean even more closures and layoffs throughout the economy.
And now the Federal Reserve has cut
interest rates again, which will encourage even more borrowing, more
spending beyond individuals’ and companies’ means, and therefore lead
to even higher inflation. Gas prices may have fallen since the
summer, but the damage has already been done. One company alone,
Exxon-Mobil, pocketed $40 billion in profits last year alone. That’s
just one company. That’s billions of dollars working people don’t
have for food, health care, education, and so on.
And then, after being told for years
that there’s no money for our schools, for health care, for jobs, or
to rebuild the Gulf Coast and the country’s infrastructure, within
days the government jumped to bail out the very same gamblers who
sparked the crisis in the first place. After decades of fighting
against government regulation and interference, they came begging for
handouts to save their system. So much for the so-called invisible
hand of the market! Or as one commentator put it, the invisible hand
of the market is now reaching into the average workers’ pockets!
The government – both Democrats
including Obama and Republicans including McCain – have now
approved a $700 billion unspecified bail out. In other words, the
money has been approved to be spent, but no one knows just how it is
to be spent. So while the bankers on Wall Street continue the make
millions in bonuses, and while billions are spent each week on the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, millions upon millions of workers are
losing their homes, jobs, retirement, and hopes for the future.
In many ways, the current crisis is
already worse than the Great Crash of 1929. Distribution of U.S.
income today is almost identical to what it was in 1928, when the top
1 per cent of Americans took in 24 per cent of the national income.
Today it’s 23 percent, and of course the total amount of money is
many times greater. We must also remember that the Great Depression
itself didn’t really kick in until two or three years after the Wall
Street crash. So while the markets may go up on this or that day, the
current crisis is far from over. We can’t say in advance how deep it
will be or how long it will last, but the indications are that it
could be very bad indeed.
And the most worrying aspect for
American workers is that we have just lived through the best
capitalism has to offer. That was the boom! That was the "good
times"! And even then, the gap between rich and poor has continued
to widen in the richest country on earth. No wonder Americans are
desperately hoping for change!
Most expensive campaign in history
The campaign to replace G.W. Bush went
on for a full 21 months. Over that period, we witnessed the rise and
fall of contenders such as Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Mitt
Romney, John Edwards and Mike Huckabee, and the eventual nominations
of John McCain and Barack Obama. Although this election marks a
decided change in mood in the electorate and comes at a decisive
turning point for the capitalist system, it was largely more of the
same. A lot more. Once again, despite the lofty talk of change and a
new kind of politics, money was again the real measure of a
candidate’s worth and chances of winning.
Early on, Obama had committed to public
financing for his campaign. But as it became apparent that he might
actually have a serious chance at being the Democrats’ nominee, he
changed course and set his eyes on the millions to be had in private
contributions. For the first time ever in U.S. history, the
candidates for president raised more than $1 billion. Obama raised an
estimated total of $640 million – $150 million in September alone.
John McCain raised "only" $360 million. This is a marked reversal
in fortunes from the last two presidential elections, when the
Republicans raised far more than the Democrats. Corporate America is
not stupid. They know which side of their bread to butter.
And if you want to know whose interests
Obama will serve during his presidency, you need only follow the
money. Let’s just say that the hundreds of thousands of small donors
won’t be receiving invitations to White House banquets.
Obama the socialist?
On all fundamental issues, Obama and
McCain are cut from the same cloth. Neither of them represent a
fundamental break with capitalism, a system based on the exploitation
of the working class by the capitalist class. Their only real
difference lies in how best to save the capitalist system. Obama’s
message of "change we can believe in" resonated with millions of
Americans tired of war, facing foreclosure, bankruptcy and
unemployment, and who cannot accept that this is really "as good as
it gets." Obama has made eloquent speeches that promise little but
inspire a lot. He has had to attack greed on Wall Street (at least in
words), criticize Bush’s handling of the Iraq War, and rail against
the "status quo" in Washington.
Not to be outdone, McCain raised the
exact same issues, but from a slightly different angle. It is
significant that these far more concrete issues took center stage, as
compared to past elections when issues such as abortion, gun control,
gay marriage, and "terrorism" in the abstract were the main
issues being discussed. However, McCain’s party was held accountable
by many for the economic crisis, and from the beginning he faced an
uphill struggle to overcome that heavy baggage. His age and bizarre
onstage antics didn’t help him either. Nor did his choice of a
late-night comedy skit caricature as his vice presidential running
mate. So he turned to an old trick in U.S. politics: accuse your
opponent of being a socialist or a communist. Just a few years ago,
such a tactic would have had at the very least a noticeable, if not a
decisive effect.
It is therefore revealing that in the
context of the growing economic crisis, the word "socialism" has
once again entered the mainstream. Even more significant is that
McCain’s red baiting didn’t damage Obama in the slightest. Most
people just had a chuckle about it. On the one hand, they understand
that Obama is by no stretch of the imagination a socialist. On the
other hand, the word "socialism" itself no longer has the same
"evil" connotations as it did just a year ago.
Obama has made it clear that he is
anything but a socialist. His health care, education and economic
plans have nothing to do with genuine socialism. Throughout his
campaign he as consistently appealed to the ubiquitous "middle
class," rarely mentioning workers, and virtually ignoring the poor.
He himself responded to McCain’s attacks as follows:
"Now, because
he knows that his economic theories don’t work, he’s been spending
these last few days calling me every name in the book. Lately he’s
called me a socialist for wanting to roll-back the Bush tax cuts for
the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the
middle class. I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he’ll
be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys
in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."
So all joking aside, the only
"socialism" Obama supports is "Wall
Street Socialism." Despite his promise to
raise taxes on the richest 5 percent of Americans, the $700 billion
bailout is a case of "socialism in reverse," a massive handout to
the rich, which will have to be paid for by the working class either
in higher taxes later on, or through even further cuts in our quality
of life. But the fact remains: Americans are at the very least
increasingly open to the idea of genuine socialism. This has
important implications for the future.
The results
Obama needed 270 electoral votes to win
the election. As of this writing, with 96 percent of the votes
counted, he has 338 electoral votes, more than double McCain’s 163.
In the popular vote, he has won by 52 to 46 percent. His victory came
despite reports of fraud, voter intimidation and disenfranchisement,
particularly of Black voters. In St. Louis, for example, text
messages were sent out to Black voters telling them that Obama
supporters should vote on Wednesday instead of Tuesday. The only part
of the city to report breakdowns in voting machines was in North
City, a predominantly Black area. Despite all of this, Obama’s
victory over John McCain was overwhelming, and the Republican
conceded relatively early on election night.
| Cynthia McKinney |
In the absence of a mass party of
labor, most of the attention has been focused on the two main
capitalist parties. With "Obamamania" in full effect, it was a
hard year for third party candidates. Nonetheless, Ralph Nader won
nearly 600,000 votes (after raising an estimated $4 million for his
campaign), and Cynthia
McKinney won nearly 120,000 (with a campaign
budget of just $188,000). Between them and several other left-wing
candidates, they received more votes than the right-wing third-party
candidates from the Libertarian and Constitution parties. And in San
Francisco’s District 8, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan challenged
Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi whose complicity in the
war has made her extremely unpopular. Although she didn’t win, it
appears Cindy Sheehan got 17 percent of the vote, not at all bad
against a powerful and well-entrenched incumbent.
Along with Obama’s decisive victory,
this all indicates that while the country is increasingly polarized
in both directions, there is a definite, albeit modest shift to the
left. This highlights the potential for a mass party of labor if the
unions would break with the Democrats. Just imagine if the $300
million spent by the labor movement on electing Obama had instead
been spent on building a labor party and fielding candidates fighting
in the interests of the working class?
The Democrats now have a commanding
advantage in both the House and the Senate. After they won a majority
in Congress in 2006, many thought they would at the very least move
decisively to cut the funding and end the war in Iraq. They did no
such thing. After Tuesday night, they have no excuses not to end the
war immediately and to pass legislation in the interests of the
millions of workers and youth who voted them into power. They have a
clear majority in Congress and control the White House as well. Their
domination of U.S. politics seems complete. And yet, just a few years
ago, many political commentators went so far as to declare the party
dead. How quickly things can change! As we explained in 2002, after
the Democrats were routed in the midterm elections:
"As Marxists we have no illusions whatsoever in the Democratic
Party, which presents itself as the ‘kinder gentler’ face of U.S.
capitalism. They are tied hand and foot to the capitalist class, and
will never represent the interests of working people. They may put up
resistance on various issues of minor importance, but they will never
in a million years side against capital in favor of the working
class. They operate entirely within the boundaries of bourgeois
democracy – that is, democracy for the rich and powerful. This
so-called ‘center of the road’ is in fact a toll road controlled by
the capitalist class. Ultimately, they wholeheartedly endorse the
capitalist system, and serve only to deceive the masses with the
illusion that things can improve under this economic system. The
Democrats have moved so far to the ‘center’ (not that they were ever
very far to the left), that they are indistinguishable from their
supposed ideological opponents. Even ultra-Democrat James Carvel
maintains that during this campaign, they did not differentiate
themselves from the Republicans in any way. If you are one of the few
people who actually voted, why bother voting for the ‘opposition’
when their politics are virtually the same as those already in power?
As the saying goes, why change horses in midstream? Both are for the
‘war on terror’ and Iraq, are marionettes of the capitalist class and
support corporate welfare with no mention of universal health care,
etc. Bush is doing a fine job at pursuing the war (a lot of bellicose
talk with few casualties as of yet), so why not let him and his party
get on with it and see how things go?"However, despite their current ineptitude, and the fact that
the masses in effect rejected them this election, the Democrats
remain a powerful tool for the ruling class. In the absence of a
traditional party of labor, the ruling class will try to use the
Democrats and their historic connection with the AFL-CIO to derail
any movement of the workers. At the present time, however, it appears
that the ruling class prefers to use the much more overtly aggressive
policies of Bush and his clique. But this will not last for very
long. What the ruling class fails to take into consideration at this
point is the fact that the American working class is still fresh and
undefeated – they will move at a certain stage. There is
tremendous discontent beneath the surface. This is what they did with
Bill Clinton, when dissatisfaction with the Reagan years was growing.
It is true that historically, due to pressure from the masses and on
the basis of the post-war economic boom, the Democrats were forced to
grant some concessions to the working class. They lived off this
reputation for decades, but their true face has now been shown, with
Clinton passing some of the most anti-working class legislation in
decades. He did the dirty work for the capitalist class – albeit
with a charming smile on his face. Although their reputation is now
in a shambles, their fortunes will be revived for a time at a certain
stage when the capitalists can no longer rule openly through Bush and
co." (U.S.
Mid-Term Election 2002: The factors that led to the Republican
victory)
How the Democrats’ fortunes have
changed! But the Democratic Party itself has not changed at all; it
is still the same party we described six years ago. It is the
objective situation and the mood in America that have changed
dramatically, so the Democrats have been called on once again to
present a "kinder gentler" face of capitalism in order to save
the system from itself. They may be forced by pressure from below to
offer this or that scrap from the bosses’ table. But in an epoch of
economic, political, military and social instability, they will not
be able to offer any significant concessions to the working class.
Their program will be one of even further cuts and attacks on our
living standards. This will fly in the face of expectations and will
further transform the consciousness of the working class.
We might add that we also predicted
that despite his re-election
in 2004, Bush would be end up being the
most hated president in recent history, that he
had no real mandate, and that he would be a dead duck by the end of
his term. That prediction has also come true. And we can now safely
predict that by the end of Obama’s first term, the illusion that he
represents something truly different will have been shattered.
Millions of Americans will be increasingly open to the idea that it
is necessary to break with the Democrats and build a party that truly
represents the working class: a mass party of labor.
President Obama
So what kind of presidency can we
expect under Obama? He may have said a lot of inspiring and promising
things on the campaign trail, but if you read between the lines, it
is clear he has been careful to commit to very little. In fact, even
before being elected, he was already backing off from many of his
promises, in order to dampen soaring expectations.
But with people like Michael Moore
calling it "The Promised Land," you can be sure that people
expect results – fast. Obama’s advisors and the media understand
this well and have moved quickly to temper the mood of exaltation
that has swept him into power. On election night, MSNBC analysts were
already expressing concern that his supporters could be
"disappointed." One of Obama’s senior advisors told the UK
newspaper The Times that the first few weeks after the
election will be crucial, "so there’s not a vast mood swing from
exhilaration and euphoria to despair."
In an article titled "Barack Obama
lays plans to deaden expectation after election victory," The
Times reported:
"In an interview with a Colorado radio station,
Mr Obama appeared to be engaged already in expectation lowering.
Asked about his goals for the first hundred days, he said he would
need more time to tackle such big and costly issues as health care
reform, global warming and Iraq. ‘The first hundred days is going to
be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days
that makes the difference,’ he said. He has also been reminding
crowds in recent days how ‘hard’ it will be to achieve his goals, and
that it will take time. ‘I won’t stand here and pretend that any of
this will be easy – especially now,’ Mr Obama told a rally in
Sarasota, Florida, yesterday, citing ‘the cost of this economic
crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq.’"
The polarization of American society is
growing, both to the left and to the right. In the heat of the
election campaign, forces have been stirred up that must be brought
back under control. The former rivals must now move might and main to
ensure that calm and order prevails. In McCain’s concession speech,
he sounded a call for national unity and support for the new
president. In his acceptance
speech, Obama set the tone for his presidency.
We provide here a few excerpts.
"I know you didn’t do this just to
win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it
because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For
even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow
will bring are the greatest of our lifetime – two wars, a planet in
peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here
tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts
of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.
There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children
fall asleep and wonder how they’ll make the mortgage, or pay their
doctors bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to
harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats
to meet and alliances to repair."The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not
get there in one year or even one term, but America – I have never
been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise
you – we as a people will get there."There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who
wont agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we
know that government cant solve every problem. But I will always be
honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you,
especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in
the work of remaking this nation the only way its been done in
America for two-hundred and twenty-one years – block by block,
brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand."What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must
not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we
seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that
cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen
without you."So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and
responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder
and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember
that if this financial crisis taught us anything, its that we cannot
have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers – in this
country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people."Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same
partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our
politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this
state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the
White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance,
individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all
share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory
tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to
heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to
a nation far more divided than ours, We are not enemies, but friends,
though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of
affection."
So there we have it, straight from the
horse’s mouth. We are to set aside our differences, work harder, rely
on ourselves, not expect too much from the government, tighten our
belts and make further sacrifices, and all be friends. At root, it is
much the same
message Bush gave the nation after September 11,
when he too appealed for national unity. The idea of "national
unity" sounds nice on the surface, and appeals to millions of
people tired of war, racism, sexism, homophobia and division. But
under capitalism, "national unity" means subordinating the
interests of the working class majority to the interests of a handful
of capitalists. We may all be "Americans," but we are not all
truly "equal." American society is divided into classes, and
these classes have opposed and irreconcilable differences. One class
exploits and lives off the labor of the other. One class concentrates
the vast majority of wealth in its hands while millions of others
barely scrape by. One class dominates the country’s politics and
controls its government. One class makes and enforces all the laws in
order to defend its interests.
And if partisanship is "petty,"
"immature," and "poisonous," why continue the farce of having
two political parties of the ruling class, when they are in effect
two wings of the same party? It is also incredibly telling that Obama
referenced Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address. We might remind
him that despite Lincoln’s friendly words, only a long and bloody
civil war succeeded in ending the divisions that literally tore apart
the nation. At that time, the country was divided between the
capitalist North and the slave-owning South. Today the country is
divided into two main classes: the working class and the capitalist
class. To try and reconcile the two is to try to square the circle.
Obama and those closest to him know that big explosions of the class
struggle are on the order of the day. His task is to keep that
struggle within "safe" limits.
Obama must therefore make some cosmetic
changes. He must give the appearance that he is doing something new
and different. After eight years of Bush and co, there will be
something of a honeymoon while Americans wait and see what they can
expect in the months and years to come. He is expected to establish
the tone of his new administration early on, while Bush limps around
the White House for a few more months. Obama will probably move
quickly to announce tax cuts on the "middle class," while
attempting to raise them on the rich. In reality, he will more than
likely simply roll back some of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which
would merely take us back to the levels of taxation under Reagan,
Bush Sr. and Clinton; i.e., to a time when cuts in social services
and a skyrocketing military budget really took off. However, even if
he does raise the rich’s taxes, how much they will actually pay
remains to be seen. There are a million and one loop holes that they
use to avoid contributing to the public treasury.
He has also already indicated that all
spending increases will mean cuts elsewhere in the budget. With
projected falling tax revenues due to the economic crisis, and an
astronomical military budget (over $500 billion per year), additional
cuts, especially in the public sector, are sure to come sooner rather
than later. Cuts in federal programs will mean that the states and
local government will have to make up the difference. To make ends
meet they will either have to increase local property and sales
taxes, or allow infrastructure, schools and other public services to
deteriorate further. Either way, the the burden will be put right
back on workers and the poor.
A couple of anecdotal comments by
people close to Obama reveal their own expectations for his
administration. Obama’s vice president Joe Biden ominously said in a
recent interview that within the first six months of Obama’s
presidency, his supporters’ loyalty would be tested, and that they
would need to rally behind him; a clear hint at some already foreseen
controversial policy or development. And Tom Daschle, the Democrats’
former leader in the U.S. Senate and rumored to be in line to become
Obama’s White House chief-of-staff, said recently that the winner
would have only a 50 per cent chance of winning a second term in
2012. In other words, his closest insiders expect his policies to be
unpopular. Why should we expect anything else from someone who
supports the Patriot Act and who voted to approve increased
government surveillance of U.S. citizens?
Big Oil and Obama’s foreign policy
Many are sick of Bush and his ties to Big Oil, but a closer look
at Obama’s energy policies should give his supporters, particularly
environmentalists, serious pause for thought. For starters, in
addition to wanting to expand the use of wind and solar energy, he is
a proponent of expanding the use of nuclear power and coal (though he
calls it "clean coal"). Like McCain, he is also in favor of
offshore drilling ("drill, baby, drill!"). Obama also voted in
favor of Bush and Cheney’s 2005 energy bill, saying "it was the
best that we could do right now." Ironically, John McCain voted
against.
When it comes to foreign policy, Obama
will be more like Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton (who bombed
Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia during his term of office,
and whose economic sanctions on Iraq led to a million deaths) than
the Bush neo-cons. In other words, he will continue to pursue and
defend U.S. imperialism’s interests abroad, albeit with less
arrogance and with more diplomatic cover. His choice of Joe Biden
(who was in favor of partitioning Iraq), is just one indication of
this.
Attention has turned to the economy,
but the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the situation in
Pakistan, the entire Middle East and Latin America, and relations
with Iran, Russia and China remain major challenges confronting the
new administration. Obama will likely reach out to the Middle East
with an expected major policy speech to be given somewhere in the
Arab world. He may shift some troops around the region and call for
"dialogue" with Syria, Iran and others, while keeping "all
options on the table." But his fundamental policy in the region
will not be much different from Bush’s. It is no accident that one of
his first stops after securing the Democratic nomination was to
ingratiate himself with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC) the main pro-Israel lobbying group, one of Bush’s main
supporters.
While skilfully avoiding any real
commitment on Iraq, Obama has successfully pulled off another "bait
and switch" trick to get anti-war voters to vote for a pro-war
candidate. In fact, he has said explicitly that any troops withdrawn
from Iraq should instead be sent to Afghanistan! However, U.S.
imperialism’s adventure in Iraq is doomed and its combat troops will
eventually have to be pulled out. Nonetheless, the Pentagon and the
mega-contractors will do everything in their power to keep the
massive bases they have built in Iraq. By pulling the troops back to
these bases, Obama could give the appearance of de-escalating the war
while continuing to project U.S. imperialism’s force throughout the
Middle East.
He has also postured aggressively in
relation to Iran, does not rule out invading Pakistan, and called
Venezuela’s democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez a dictator.
It is unlikely, to say the least, that he will disband the U.S. 4th
fleet, which was reactivated just this year to "patrol" Latin
America and the Caribbean. He has also promised to close the prison
camp at Guantanamo, and may well do so. The symbolism of such a move
would be important for his image, but he would more than likely
simply move the prisoners held there elsewhere.
We will know more once he announces his
foreign policy cabinet appointments (all unelected positions, by the
way), but a look at his election campaign advisors certainly gives us
an indication of what’s to come. During the campaign he was advised
on foreign policy by former national security advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski (who funded the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, the
precursors to the Taleban); former assistant Secretary of State Susan
Rice (mentored by Madeleine Albright); former Secretary of the Navy
Richard Danzig (under whose watch the U.S. bombed Yugoslavia); former
counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke (under Clinton and G.W. Bush);
General Merrill McPeak (a vocal supporter of Indonesia’s occupation
of East Timor); and Dennis Ross (a supporter of Israel’s occupation
of the West Bank), among others. They say that you can judge a man by
the friends he keeps. That list of "friends" speaks for itself.
A New ‘New Deal’?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not
elected on a New Deal platform. He was forced to implement these
social and public works policies in a last ditch effort to save U.S.
capitalism from the danger of socialist revolution. But we should
remember that back in the 1930s, the U.S. was a major creditor nation
with massive reserves of gold. n addition, the recession had already
been going for nearly four years when FDR first came to power. Obama
has inherited an entirely different domestic and international
situation. The U.S. is now the world’s greatest debtor nation and the
economic recession is just beginning. Even if Obama is forced at a
certain stage to implement similar policies (again, as the result of
mass pressure from below and the threat of revolution), it could only
be by further increasing deficit spending, which would only lead to
even more complications in the future. There is no easy way out for
U.S. capitalism and imperialism. Anything they do to try and restore
economic stability can only increase social and political
instability, and vice versa.
So at root, very little will change,
and Obama’s room for maneuver will be limited. Having missed out on
the boom, American workers will now be asked to "share the pain"
in the interest of "national unity." But workers and the poor
will share a lot more of the pain than the rich, as the Wall Street
bailout already shows. We say: make the rich pay! Why should working
people have to pay for the bosses’ crisis?
Let’s put it clearly: Will Obama repeal
Taft-Hartley and other anti-labor legislation? Will he implement a
national living wage? Will he abolish the HMOs and provide free,
universal health care? Will he cut the military budget and invest
much needed billions in education, housing and infrastructure? Will
he nationalize the energy, auto and airline industries, all crucial
for the functioning of the country, to be run under democratic
workers’ control? Will he stop the raids and deportations and grant
amnesty to immigrant workers and their families? Will he launch a
mass program of public works to create millions of union jobs,
provide housing for all, modernize and expand public transportation
and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure? Don’t hold your breath.
Capitalism is in crisis: socialism
is the solution!
Obama’s election comes at a time of
growing pessimism, not just about the current situation, but about
the future itself. People need to believe that things can get better.
This explains the revival in interest in the ideas of socialism. From
McCain, Obama, Pain and Biden, to "Joe the plumber" and the Wall
Street Journal, the words "socialism" and references to Marx
are in the mainstream on a level not seen in this country since the
collapse of the USSR. In Germany, where the crisis is also hitting
workers hard, Marx’s Capital is back on the best seller’s
list. The question on many people’s minds is the following: Was Marx
right?
Despite the decades of prejudices that
have been built up against the ideas of Marxism and socialism, people
are increasingly open to these ideas, since they can see in practice
that capitalism isn’t working. Remember, after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, we were promised a "Pax Americana" of peace, full
employment and a tomorrow brighter than today. What have we gotten
instead? War, terrorism, cuts in social programs, millions of jobs
lost and more spending on the military than ever.
| Anti-Bailout Rally, Wall Street, 25th September 2008 |
Millions of Americans say they
uninterested in politics or economics – they’re apparently
apathetic and would rather watch Monday Night Football or Dancing
with the Stars. But even if you are not interested in politics and
economics, politics and economics are interested in you. On the basis
of their own experience, increasing numbers of formerly apparently
apathetic Americans are waking up to an active interest in politics
and economics. Within the limits of the two party system, millions of
Americans are in a confused way looking for a solution to their
problems. Obama had record numbers of volunteers organizing in
communities across the nation. For the first time, they felt they had
a reason to get involved in politics. In the future, the skills they
learned will be put to good use – but not for the Democrats or
Republicans. The foundations for a future mass party of labor are
already being laid.
For decades, we have been brainwashed.
We’ve been told that the free market reigns supreme, that socialism
and Marxism don’t work, that capitalism is the best possible system,
that there is no alternative. And if a lie repeated often enough,
people tend to believe it. But nonetheless, these ideas persist and
continue to spark people’s imagination.
So what is socialism, anyway? By
socialism we mean the genuine nationalization – the expropriation
of the top 500 banks and corporations – to be run under democratic
workers’ control, in the interest of the whole of society. It’s
really not that complicated. We believe the working class majority
should have democratic control over the means of production,
distribution and exchange, in harmony with the environment. In other
words, we need a rational and democratic plan of production that is
geared toward meeting human needs, not private profits.
But you cannot plan what you do not
control, and you cannot control what you do not own. This is why the
state should need to take over the key levers of the economy. Now,
this is where many people, Americans in particular, get nervous. They
don’t trust the government we live under, and are therefore
justifiably suspicious of anything having to do with increased state
control. So the real question is: who controls the state? In
our opinion, we need a workers’ state, a state that represents the
vast majority of society, the working class, as opposed to the state
we live under today, which is a state designed to defend the
interests of a tiny minority, the capitalist class.
Many people say that Americans are too
conservative for a socialist revolution to take place here. But
things can change very quickly. Just think of all the big events that
have taken place in the last few years. The collapse of Enron.
September 11. The 2000 and 2004 electoral frauds. Hurricane Katrina
and its aftermath. The collapse of the entire financial services
sector in the richest country on earth. The election of a Black
president.
In fact, it is precisely because people
are conservative that there will be a revolutionary movement right
here in the belly of the beast. People want stability: they want a
steady job with decent benefits, they want quality health care and
education, a safe place to live and time to spend with their families
and loved ones. But capitalism can no longer provide even these
basics to humanity.
We live in an epoch of sharp and sudden
changes, a period of massive shifts in consciousness on the basis of
earth shaking events. This is not normally the case. Normally, years
and even decades can go by and it seems as though nothing changes.
But these are not normal times. But the fact is, absolutely nothing
is static – everything changes. Absolutely everything is in
a constant state of movement and change. From volcanoes and
earthquakes to relations between nations and human consciousness.
Many are euphoric about Obama’s
victory, and there will be a certain honeymoon. Some measure of hope
has been restored to a beleaguered public – at least for now. Even
the markets were happy with exit poll data giving the election to
Obama. The Dow Jones jumped over 300 points on election day,
typically a slow day on Wall Street. But sooner rather than later,
the elation will wear off and the cold reality will set in: nothing
fundamental has changed. We are still living under capitalism, with
everything that entails: unemployment, home foreclosures, rising
prices, racism, millions of second-class citizens and workers, low
wages, deteriorating conditions, rotting infrastructure, and so on.
There are already symptoms of the
simmering discontent exploding to the surface, for example, the mass
mobilizations of immigrant workers, the growing mood of discontent
among many rank and file trade unionists, or the spontaneous
demonstrations against the bail out on Wall Street. This is just the
beginning of the beginning of things to come.
We predicted long in advance that the
real loser in these elections would be the working class.
Nonetheless, at the moment, millions of workers and young people feel
like the winners. We understand the tremendous hopes so many people
have invested in Obama. The last few years have been hard. But we
stand by our position. We’ve said it before,
and we say it again: As long as the two capitalist parties continue
to dominate U.S. politics, the working class will never see its
interests represented in Washington. This is why the unions must
break with the Democrats and build
a mass party of labor. The potential for such a
party is enormous. Such a party would not remain a third party for
long. We want it to become the first party; let the Democrats and
Republicans fight for third place, or complete their fusion into a
single party.
We must have a patient, friendly
approach to those with honest illusions in Obama. But Obama’s
acceptance speech makes it clear that there are no miracles or quick
fixes waiting around the corner. He made it clear that things will
not get better overnight, and may not get better for a long time to
come. In fact, they will most likely get even worse.
CNN sounded a note of caution on
election night, when an interviewer said that economic change doesn’t
happen overnight, and that the winner would have a very short
honeymoon. The AP’s top post-election story was titled
"President-elect Obama faces daunting challenges." This is the
sober reality of the situation.
The 2008 Presidential elections are
indeed historic. They mark a new stage in the changing consciousness
of the U.S. working class. Many people have already broken with the
two party system and can see through Obama’s sweet-sounding words.
But most workers and young people will have to learn the hard way,
through their own experience. Life teaches. Welcome to the "school
of the Democrats."
See also:
- Prospects for a Labor Party – Part One and Part Two
- Millions of US families threatened with eviction by Jorge Martin (October 10, 2008)
- "Wall Street Socialism" and the US elections by US Socialist Appeal (October 8, 2008)
- Report on New York City Anti-Bailout Rally by Mark Rahman (September 29, 2008)
- The U.S. Elections and the Working Class by Shane Jones (September 10, 2008)
USA: Socialism – Change We Can Actually Believe In by US Socialist Appeal Editorial Board (September 1, 2008)
