Revolution #237, June 26, 2011
Part 2: BUILDING THE MOVEMENT FOR REVOLUTION
Countering wrong-headed theories and "stratagems" which serve the imperialist system
Now in the ideological sphere, an important part of preparing minds, as well as organizing forces, for revolution—laying the basis for this revolution ideologically and politically as well as organizationally—is taking into account and countering analyses and "stratagems" which are designed to serve (or, in some cases, with a different motivation nonetheless end up serving, even if unintentionally) the ruling class in making the oppressed, and others hungering for a more just, and even a radically different, society, feel "surrounded" and "marginalized": up against not only the formidable power of the imperialist state, with its massive machinery of death and destruction as well as its well-honed repressive apparatus of police, prisons, and courts, but also seemingly up against the "majority" of the U.S. population, which is supposedly somehow inherently "conservative." This does relate to the objective phenomenon I was just speaking of—the development of U.S. imperialism through spirals over the last century or so, and in a pronounced way in the period since World War 2, and then another major change with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire, as such. Those objective developments and the conditions associated with them have a great deal to do, not only with the parasitism in this society in a general sense, but also with the phenomenon where, spontaneously and through the concentrated and systematic work of the ruling class and people representing it, the basic masses in particular do feel "marginalized" and even "surrounded" in this framework. And then, on top of that, there is this concerted ideological effort by the ruling class to come up with—or, in any case, to propagate—various theories and stratagems which give further expression to this and have the effect, directly or indirectly, of further deepening this feeling of being isolated, marginalized, and surrounded.
For example, there are the infamous and ever-present polls. The crafting and use of polls is a major ideological weapon wielded by the bourgeoisie—and we should understand that this is essentially what these polls are. That doesn't mean that every person who's hired to work on a poll is "a conscious functionary of the imperialist ruling class"—nor is it the case that the results of every poll are simply invented or are wildly inaccurate—but there are, built-into these polls and the way they are conducted, not only real limitations but also significant biases and ways in which they skew things; and the objective function of these polls—and to a significant degree, on the part of major functionaries of the ruling class, this is a deliberate and conscious intent—is to help establish and reinforce what the ruling class wants people to believe. For example, out comes this Nazi-like anti-immigrant law in Arizona—and, wouldn't you know, here comes a poll saying that a majority of the American people support this law. What is the intent, and certainly what is the effect, of putting out such a poll? Even if a lot of basic people don't pay attention to polls, per se, and aren't aware of a particular poll by Gallup or whomever, they nevertheless are affected by the general "vibe," if you want to use that word, that gets out in society, which these polls play a significant part in creating. In fact, it is hard to think of a serious reactionary offensive by the ruling class of this country that does not have its "poll" to back it up and portray it as, lo and behold, "the will of the American people," or at least a majority of them.
So this is something we need to counter, including by way of explaining to people how these polls are actually conducted, what their role and function is, and what they do and do not represent. We shouldn't underestimate the effect that, even if to a large degree indirectly, such polls and the whole ideological thrust that they're part of has in demoralizing masses and making them feel that it's pointless to resist and to rise up, and certainly to think of making revolution.
Along with this, there is the misreading, or deliberate distortion, of the experience and social impacts and effects of the 1960s and its aftermath. I referred earlier to the book Suburban Warriors by Lisa McGirr. Well, while that book does contain a lot of interesting and in many ways insightful analysis, it also repeats the widely propagated thesis that the radical impulses and upsurges of the '60s gave rise to a "backlash" and moved the country to the right, as expressed in the dominance of the Republican Party in elections in this country since that time.
There are so many things wrong with this analysis that a) it's hard to know where to begin; and b) I don't have time to go into anything like all of it in the context of this talk. But, to speak to an essential aspect of this, these kinds of analyses leave out the fundamental fact that there was a certain dynamic in which (as admitted by people like Henry Kissinger and others of the ruling class) radical and, broadly speaking, revolutionary forces had the initiative in society by the end of the 1960s, and to a very significant degree—culturally, ideologically, as well as politically—were setting the terms, with the ruling class and reactionary forces rocked back on their heels. But—here is a point we have to keep coming back to—that was not carried through to an actual revolution. There was no fundamental change in the social relations and the system of political power, and its underlying material basis in the economic system. And fundamentally in relation to that, the movement of the '60s ebbed. When you add to that setbacks and major defeats for revolution and communism—including in a concentrated way the loss of China to a revisionist seizure of power in the 1970s—the ruling class in this country was able to forcefully reassert its objectives, its values, its outlook, including in various dimensions and arenas in which it had been significantly on the defensive in the face of this massive radical upsurge, which obviously didn't just take place in the U.S., but was an international, a truly worldwide phenomenon through the 1960s (and into the early '70s). But that understanding is not what is put forward in this kind of ("backlash against the '60s upheaval") analysis.
What's also wrong with this analysis is the essential point that elections are not the arena through which the fundamental interests of the masses of people can be, or are, expressed—and, bound up with this, the fact that the system in a country like the U.S. is a bourgeois dictatorship in which the capitalist ruling class (even with all the contention within its ranks, sometimes serious and sharp contention) sets the terms for the elections: what will be considered as valid and viable alternatives in the framework of those elections; who is a legitimate candidate; what are legitimate issues; what is the contour and the shape of the choices that one has in such elections—all that is determined and, yes, dictated by the ruling class. Therefore, not only is it the case that this cannot be an arena through which the basic and highest interests of the masses are expressed but, in opposition to that, it is an arena through which the masses are drawn into debating and acting on the terms and in the interests of the ruling class: That is what has been fundamentally setting the terms and determining the confines of what has gone on in elections since the 1960s, as well as throughout the history of this country.
So, with regard to a "backlash" against the 1960s, insofar as it has been a real phenomenon, it has been the result of the fact that, despite the truly great upsurge in the 1960s, there was no revolution in the U.S., and therefore things remained within the framework of the existing system and the dynamics, and confines, of the dominant (bourgeois) politics and their underlying material base. This—along with the profound setbacks for revolution and communism, which were concentrated in and resulted to a large degree from the revisionist coup, seizing power in China shortly after the death of Mao Tsetung in 1976 and restoring capitalism there—is what has fundamentally shaped what has happened in U.S. society overall, and to a large degree the world. And certainly this applies to the role and the character of elections under the rule of the bourgeoisie within the U.S.
This "backlash" thesis is not only a fundamentally flawed analysis, but it is a theory and an analysis that is objectively in the service of the imperialists in terms of confusing, misleading, and yes, disorienting and demoralizing people who do desire some kind of significant, even radical, change. So this is something we need to take on and refute, scientifically and compellingly.
And, without getting into this at length here, we can see the importance of the "pyramid analysis," which has been spoken to in "Unresolved Contradictions, Driving Forces for Revolution" and elsewhere1: its scientific discussion of the underlying dynamics and the driving interests of this system and its ruling class; divisions within that ruling class; the interconnection between that and the actual "social configuration" within the U.S.; the spontaneous tendencies of different strata and groups, and the challenges of repolarization—for revolution—all in the context of the overall world situation, with its dynamics, upheavals, conflicts, and struggles.
The mythology, and the actual nature, of elections and bourgeois democracy
Now, one of the main pillars of this system—and I spoke to this earlier in terms of its role as a cohering mythology, similar to the divine right of kings in feudal society—is the significant way in which its legitimacy rests on, and is consciously constructed on, the processes and mechanisms of the bourgeois electoral arena, and how this has an effect in legitimizing the system especially, though not only, for the middle strata. This is both a strong pillar and also potentially a vulnerable pillar of this system. The ardent defenders and apologists of this system have all kinds of theories about the "special nature" of democracy, and of course the exceptional and special character of America. This includes the nostrums and bromides, the unscientific and incorrect analysis, about how democracies never fight each other in a war—it is only tyrannies that start wars—all of which goes back to their founders, like Paine and others. All this is a big pillar on which their legitimacy rests objectively, and on which they have consciously decided to ground their legitimacy, to a significant degree—again, especially, though not only, for the middle strata. And this underlines all the more the importance of exposing what is the actual character, and the actual function, of elections under the rule of the bourgeoisie.
There are many people, including many in the middle strata, who do become disillusioned when, repeatedly, the politicians and the political parties (and in particular the Democratic Party) do not turn out to be what they hoped, and were deluded into thinking, they would be. Nowadays, the "blues" is setting in significantly with the whole Obama thing—there is a way in which the trump card2 for the ruling class, in having Obama run and actually become president, is beginning to turn into its opposite.
Still, as pointed out in Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That?,3 with regard to elections, and more generally the democratic proclamations and pretensions of this system, the contradiction between those proclamations and pretensions and the actual functioning of this system is at one and the same time a constant source of resistance and struggle, and a constant source of regenerated illusions. This is a contradiction we have to know how to work on, in terms of repolarization, particularly of the middle strata (though not only those strata) with a really scientific grounding. We need to clearly recognize that, in a very significant aspect, the phenomenon of elections, as a quintessential expression of what is in reality bourgeois democracy, is—and they have consciously made it—a major pillar of their legitimacy. And they have extended this to the point where not only do they identify revolution in general with terrorism—if such a revolution is actually opposed to their interests—but they have specifically made it a principle that in a society in which there are bourgeois elections—or at least a society of that kind which they like and which they identify as being in accord with their interests—revolution is illegitimate, because there is a means, a peaceful means, through the established institutions, mechanisms and processes of the system, to bring about change.
So, at one and the same time, the legitimacy of their system and the illegitimacy of any attempt at revolution against such a system is to a significant degree—and consciously, to a large degree—grounded in bourgeois democracy and more specifically in an electoral process with competing parties as an expression of such a democracy. This is why, over and over again, everything that comes up in the social and political arena is immediately, if you watch the major news media, re-shaped and re-funneled into the Democrats versus Republicans framework and the bourgeois electoral arena in general.
1. Bob Avakian, "Unresolved Contradictions, Driving Forces for Revolution," serialized beginning with Revolution #184 (November 29, 2009), and available online at revcom.us/avakian/driving. Revolution: Why It's Necessary, Why It's Possible, What It's All About, a film of a talk by Bob Avakian. The pyramid analysis is on disk 4, "Another war for election purposes? (pyramid)"; available at revcom.us, revolutiontalk.net, and bobavakian.net. [back]
2. This "Obama as trump card" analysis was introduced by Bob Avakian in excerpts from correspondence written in the wake of the election of Barack Obama which appeared in Revolution: "Obama: Playing the Trump Card?" (#149, November 30, 2008); "In the Wake of the Election, a Basic Point of Orientation: To the Masses…With Revolution" (#150, December 14, 2008); "'Obamamania' and the Malcolm X Spirit" (#151, December 28, 2008). [back]
3. Bob Avakian, Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That?, Banner Press, 1986. [back]