I want to teabag some of these Teabaggers

All across America yesterday, idiots who are totally enthralled with right-wing ideologies and apparently have no idea how taxes and government finance works got together and had “tea parties”, which were supposed to be in the spirit of the famous Boston Tea Party I guess. Anyway, I thought it was worth noting how ridiculous these little protests are.

They are all obviously anti-Obama and anti-Democrat, which is the thing that is dumb. Apparently they feel that when they filed their income taxes (if they did) they were paying hugely outrageous income taxes to pay for Obama’s yet-to-exist deficit. Here’s why that’s stupid:

• You’re paying income taxes for 2008. Before the last election. Before Obama became President. It’s not like Obama woke up on April 15th and decided “Gee I think I’m going to charge this much for income taxes today!” The tax scale that you’re paying for comes from the Bush era.
• A lot of people might ASSUME that they’re going to be paying more taxes if the Obama budget passes because it runs a deficit. But where were all these “teabaggers” during the past 8 years of Bush’s deficits?
• All of these people who think that Obama is ruing them are drawing conclusions from their preconceived notions, not from reality. The man has been President for what, three months? There hasn’t been time for him to really get anything major passed into law, let alone evaluate the results. If you want to tear the guy down, whatever, but how can you seriously be protesting something Obama’s done when he hasn’t had time to do anything?

Look, I’m not just all about rubber stamping everything the guy does. But I’m not going to go spouting off idiotic rhetoric and throwing a little protest over something that hasn’t happened.

The left-wing view of Obama

Despite what the media tells you, Obama is not a leftist. At best I would call him “center-left”. He’s by no means a socialist or a communist. He’s not a revolutionary. He was the best chance we had to defeat the ultra-right during the last Presidential election and a hell of a lot better than McCain would have been. But he’s not going to lead us into a global communist revolution or something like that.

Everyone, except Glenn Beck maybe, realizes this. That’s not the question. The question concerns those of us who ARE socialists, leftists, or communists, and it’s this: now that we’ve got him in office, how far do we go in supporting him and criticising him? Where do we draw that line?

The Clinton years were wonderful for me, as a teen just becoming politically aware in a very conservative rural town. For the only time in my life I could talk about how lousy the President was and people agreed with me. Then came 8 years of Bush. Those were not easy times. I became more withdrawn about politics, a little more careful about who I spoke to about it. Sure, I wore a Fidel Castro tee shirt on a regular basis, but I waited for people to ask me about it and then gave them a watered-down response.

Now it’s back to a Democrat in office and for the first time in a long time I could call my dad up and bitch and moan to him, and he would bitch and moan right with me. But I don’t want to. So far I have been very quiet about my reservations regarding the Obama Administration’s policies. Because he is NOT a socialist/communist/etc. and I am, there are obviously some things I disagree with him about. Quite a few of them.

But at the same time I’m not so sure it’s time to start publicly blasting him because I’m afraid if we drag him down too far, the Pig with Lipstick will be ready to turn our country into one big JesusLand in 2012. I guess I am not entirely confident in the political education of Joe Sixpack. I think most people don’t see out of the two-party box and if they don’t like the Democrat incumbent they’ll automatically vote for the Republican (or vice versa). I seriously can’t see a lot of people saying “well, the problem with Obama is that he is not left enough.” Which is exactly what I’d like them to say, because it’s true. But our political system has been trapped in this framework where John McCain is considered centrist and Obama is the farthest left we’ve had in decades, that I don’t see a lot of people thinking outside of that box.

Then again, if we — meaning the really left left –  just sit by silently, or even cheerlead Obama, don’t we stand to lose the few people who support us? If we appear too “centrist” don’t we risk alienating our support from the left and further fragmenting the movement that way?

So there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where is it? I don’t know. That’s not a rhetorical question. I seriously want some input on how we approach the Obama adminsitration.

Here’s what I do know. Whatever policy we take, we need to be crystal clear on our intentions and present alternatives. We cannot criticise Obama only to throw fuel on the right-wing’s fire, and whenever we support him it has to be clearly stated that it is a tactical move, and why. That’s all I’ve got.

Spreading the wealth around?

During the Presidential campaign, during the whole Joe the Plumber show, Barack Obama’s economic policies were summed up as “spreading the wealth around”. Of course, the right seized on this as an example of “socialism”. As I’ve pointed out previously, that’s not socialism, except maybe by the most vague idea of what socialism is. I would now go further; that Obama’s policies, or even real socialism, aren’t even really spreading the wealth around at all.

If you go to work at a factory, an oilfield, a mine, a McDonald’s restaurant, whatever, the owner of the enterprise you work for is taking the wealth you create away from you. Your labor is what creates profit for capitalists. The thing that turns materials into commodities is human labor, and that’s what gives them value. If a capitalist buys a bunch of lumber, nails, glue, paint for $100, he can’t turn around and sell them all again for $300 (unless he is very successful in market speculation). But if he hires you to turn them into a table, he can. Your human labor has created a commodity of increased value for the capitalist.

So, if you work for 8 hours making a table, and the owner writes you a paycheck for $100, pays $100 for the materials, and sells the table for $300, that leaves a $100 balance. That’s called surplus value. You created that surplus value with your labor and the capitalist has taken it away from you, having done little or no work himself, but simply by virtue of the fact that he owns the table factory and you don’t. Despite the fact that you created the wealth, you had no say in how much of it goes into the pocket of the bourgeois owner. He took the money from you without even asking.

Now, suppose the government taxes the capitalist. Then they turn around and give you health insurance, energy assistance, and education subsidies. If you’re low income, maybe they give you food stamps, housing subsidies and childcare assistance. Or, maybe they just cut your income taxes. That’s not spreading the wealth around. That’s returning the wealth to its rightful owner!

What’s wrong with that?

The Battle is Not Over.

Things have gone well. Obama won the White House with a massive electoral vote blowout and the Democratic Party has strengthened its lead in both houses of congress. Some races that were initially feared lost still have at least a glimmer of hope: in Alaska, Mark Begich is within 4,000 votes of ousting Republican Ted Stevens, the Senate’s longest serving member and it’s only convicted felon, with over 40,000 votes left to count. Al Franken’s bid to capture one of Minnesota’s Senate seats has fallen just 500-some votes short, well inside the margin for a recount. There is hope that they could pick up another seat or two. And, of course, we can take pride in knowing that — much to the chagrin of many out there — our country has elected its first African-American President. These are all good things.

For communists, though, our intention was never just to elect as many Democrats as possible. Our goal is to defeat the ultra-right. In this election, progressive and centrist forces have gained the upper hand against the ultra-right, however, the battle is far from over. We don’t want to turn the corner only to allow them to come back with a vengeance a couple years down the road.

No, the battle to defeat the ultra-right is not over. The battle is not just to relegate them to a large minority party; the battle is to utterly smash the right-wing movement as a political force and render it incapable of ever playing a major role in American politics again. This may seem like a radical thing to say. Well, I am a radical after all. But so are the ultra-rightist that have been dominating Washington. Make no mistake about it, there are plenty of very radical elements within the Republican Party, and if Americans want real qualitative change in their daily lives, we need to shift the framework of the political spectrum far enough that the Republican ideology in general is relegated to the position it belongs: the fringes. It is my hope that, in the future, voting for a Republican will sound as ridiculous as voting for a Communist sounds today.

There is bound to be plenty of celebration on the Left today after last night’s election results, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. In order to accomplish our goals, we need to keep the pressure on. This election could be a turning point. Or it could be the point where we fall asleep at the wheel. The choice is yours.

Is Obama a Socialist?

Republicans and other conservatives in the media and around the nation have been labelling Presidential candidate Barack Obama as a “socialist” mainly because he wants to reverse the portion of the Bush tax cuts that let the super-rich run away with loads of cash. Is this all it takes to make someone a socialist? Could Barack Obama really be trying to lead our country down the path to a glorious proletarian revolution?

To answer this question, who would be better to ask than a member of the Communist Party? Actually, who would be better to ask than former CPUSA National Chair Gus Hall? The late Comrade Hall wrote an piece called “Socialism USA” which is an explanation of the main vision of the Communist Party as far as what socialism would look like in the United States. In order to determine whether or not Obama is a socialist, let’s see how America under Obama would compare to America under socialism.

I’m going to pull a series of quotes from the text of Socialism USA, which can be found in its entirety here. You’re more than welcome to check out the whole document. First lets see what Hall has to say about economics (emphasis added by yours truly):

Political power would be in the hands of working people. Socialism starts with nationalization of the main means of production – the plants, factories, agri-business farms and everything necessary to produce what society needs. The large monopoly corporations and banks come under public ownership, that is, under the collective ownership of the entire working class and people, who have the leading role in building socialism.

Socialism also means public ownership of the energy industry and all the natural resources. It eliminates forever the power of the capitalist class to exploit and oppress the majority.

Does Barack Obama advocate the nationalization of America’s main industries, particularly energy industries and all natural resources? If he does, it’s news to me. As far as I can tell he’s pretty un-socialist in that department. So far on his “socialism scorecard” he’s got a big goose egg. Let’s move on:

A socialist government draws up plans covering the entire economy. They are drawn up with maximum participation of the people, from the shop level on up. Such plans are achieved because they harmonize the interests of all, because there are no conflicts arising from exploitation of workers and no dog-eat-dog competition.

Production increases much faster than under capitalism, with a planned economy, advancement of science and technology, and the protection and preservation of our environment and natural resources.

Obama seems to fail the socialism test by these criteria also. I’ve never heard him advocate a national economic plan drawn up with the input of workers. However, I think that the government may invest more resources into science and technology research with Obama as President, and do significantly better than McCain and Sarah “Drill, Baby, Drill” Palin in the realm of environmental protection. So let’s give Obama a 1.5 on these three questions. That brings his socialism score up to 1.5 out of 4. On to the next issue…

Full employment will be quickly achieved as production is expanded to satisfy the needs of people. Automation at the service of the working people will lead to both reduced hours of work and higher living standards, with no layoffs.

Has Obama proposed any ways to ensure full employment and eliminate layoffs? Not that I know of. These are key goals of socialism and he hasn’t suggested any way to reach them. More zeroes.

Poverty will be ended quickly with the recovery of the vast resources now wasted in war production, corporate profits and the extravagent lifestyles of the filthy rich.

I’ll give Obama a point here. He has talked about ending the Iraq war and investing the resources elsewhere, and increasing the tax burden on the rich to “spread the wealth around.” So by may calculation, he’s up to a 2.5 out of 6. That’s less than a 50%, which is failing in any gradebook I’ve ever seen. But let’s see if old Barack can pull his act together:

All education will be tuition-free. Every person will have access to unlimited medical and health care without charge. These rights will be realized as rapidly as facilities can be built and the personnel trained.

I’ve never heard Obama say anything about eliminating tuition. Zero there. As far as unlimited health care without charge, I’ll give him half a point. His health care plan would extend coverage for those people who don’t have benefits available through their jobs; but those who stay covered through work would have to pay premiums and co-pays, and by “unlimited” I think Hall means vision and dental, which aren’t mentioned in his policies. That brings Obama’s socialism score up to a 3 out of 8. Not so hot!

The children will reap all the benefits of socialist child care, free nurseries and schools with the very best facilities and teachers.

Free child care? Uhm, haven’t heard anything like that. Zero there. That’s the last point of conention I have to bring to the table, and when we total it all up, Obama has scored three “points” out of a possible 9. That makes him about 33% socialist. I’d think that even John McCain could find a couple things in Hall’s document that he could agree with. Obviously there’s more to the text, so go ahead and read it for yourself and let me know what you think.

This is kind of a bummer for me. I would love it for Barack Obama to be a socialist. I think that would be pretty awesome actually. But, looking at things objectively, I think the Republicans are giving him a little too much credit.

Am I accusing the Republicans of hyperbole? How dare I? Well, Obama naturally agrees with me:

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.”

Granted, I could be mistaken in some of my judgements and I would be more than happy if I was. That would only make me want to vote for the guy even more, so go ahead and point out any ways in which I understate his socialist-ness. However, Obama has a long way to go before he can turn that F into a passing grade in Socialism 101. Maybe I’m wrong. I’d be happy to say I am. But I doubt it.

YouTube!!!

I’m not usually on the whole YouTube bandwagon. In fact, when it comes to my internets, I usually hate video. But my friend from high school in Alaska made a Sarah Palin video, and it’s pretty funny, so I just have to share it:

And what the hell, while I’m at it, I thought I’d throw in another good one. This one’s on the Employee Free Choice Act and goes straight to the funny bone.

GOP backs off Montana voters

A couple days ago I posted an article detailing the efforts of the Montana GOP to hassle potential Democratic voters by challenging their voter registration. Well, good news: thanks to public outcry over their schiesty maneuvers, the Montana Republican Party has ceased its campaign. From the Montana Standard:

In a letter to Vicki Zeier of the Missoula County elections office, Jacob Eaton, executive director of the Montana Republican Party, wrote that the group no longer wished to challenge thousands of Missoula county voters or any other voters statewide.

…

“As a disabled combat veteran who has fought Al Queada to defend this country and our democracy and who has voted absentee en route to a war zone, I regret that my actions have been perceived as [an effort to suppress voter turnout],” Eaton wrote.

I included that last paragraph because it made my stomach turn. I don’t mean to take anything away from any disabled veteran, Eaton included, who has sacrificed their well-being for our country. But to hide behind their military service, as though we’re supposed to say “oh well he’s a disabled vet, I guess that means he isn’t a slick weasel after all”, is almost as deplorable as his underhanded tactics are.

But hey, let’s not kick him while he’s down. Good work to everyone who helped reject this obvious case of voter intimidation.

The history of Afghanistan according to John McCain

Watching the Presidential debates, it’s obvious that John McCain either has a very poor grasp of history, or wants to deceive us so that we don’t notice the contradiction of his beliefs. Or maybe he deceives himself to reconcile his inner contradictions. Either way, I noticed that his version of the history of Afghanistan is a little lacking. Here’s what he says happened:

1) In the 1980’s, we helped Afghan “Freedom Fighters” drive the USSR out of Afghanistan.

2) We thought we had won and took off.

3) The Taliban government and Al Qaeda popped up out of nowhere after we had turned our back.

4) Today we’re involved in Afghanistan because we didn’t “finish the job” in the 80’s.

BULLSHIT. Bully bully bullshit. Here’s what John McCain either doesn’t realize, or doesn’t want you to realize: the “freedom fighters” and the Taliban/Al Qaeda are the same people. Ideologically they are exactly the same. Some of them are literally the exact same people.

Let’s take a look at the real history of Afghanistan during the 70’s and 80’s. The April 1978 “Saur Revolution” led to the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. This government was apparently communist but was hardly a carbon copy of the Soviet Union; its ideology was more of an Islam-influenced social democracy. The Afghan government then committed its most terrible sins: banning forced marriages, giving women the right to vote and be elected to office, teaching women to read, replacing Islamic law with secular rule, promoting the cultural revival of ethnic minorities, and providing electricity and infrastructure to the countryside.

The Afghan “Freedom Fighters”/Terrorists preceded the presence of the Soviet Union. So did “Operation Cyclone”, the massive campaign of support that the United States gave to the Afghan rebels. The movement that eventually led to the Taliban government, which would become the protectors of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, was launched in response to the secular and modern policies of the People’s government. They did not arise as a response to a foreign occupation. Likewise, the United States did not have to wait until the Soviet Union stepped on Afghan soil; the establishment of a Soviet-ish government was reason enough to back some very unsavory elements.

Naturally the young government of People’s Afghanistan did not have the might to fight off US-backed insurgents. The only recourse they had was to ask for help. So it came to be that the Soviet “invaders” — invaders who were invited — entered Afghanistan to help the legitimate Afghan government fight a US-backed radical Islamist insurgency. At first the Afghans, with the help of their Soviet comrades, were successful in turning back the terrorist rebels, but as US aid poured in the war became costly at the USSR eventually pulled out. The extremists did not stop at “liberating” their soil from the “invaders” though, they continued to fight a three-year civil war against the People’s government until they succeeded in establishing their own radical theocracy: the Taliban. That government, which we helped to establish, gave Osama bin Laden’s terrorists safe haven to train and plot the September 11th attacks.

I have no problem with the principle of our war in Afghanistan because we’re responsible for making the mess over there in the first place. If we had just let the Soviets take care of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban movement in the first place we wouldn’t have to go in there and fix it. But to suggest that we’re back there because we didn’t “finish the job” is a complete and total lie. We finished the job alright. We got exactly what we wanted. In the eyes of our leaders during the climax of the cold war, an extremist, fundamentalist theocracy was better than a workers’ state. Our government wanted the Taliban to take power and they got their wish.

In the midst of this bloody conflict, in 1983, John McCain was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. You’d think he’d know a thing or two about it. Sadly this latest example of his trademark “straight talk” is about par for the course.

Bailout exposes Republican split

The Wall-Street bailout plan that just passed both houses of congress, and the heated debate on capitol hill that surrounded it, is evidence of different ideological trends within the Republican Party. The gap between the two factions, and between the factions and their constituents who identify with the competing faction, has severe consequences for the GOP.

When George W. Bush announced the bailout plan, it put members of his party between a rock and a hard place. Laid naked were the differing ideologies within the GOP: the old-time libertarian, laissez-faire capitalists on one hand and the monopoly capital, give-Wall-Street-a-handout-wherever-we-can crowd on the other. Traditionally these ideologies don’t stand in direct contradiction because deregulation, privatization, and other forms of economic liberalism are handouts to monopoly capital. Wall Street generally likes less government because it lets the wealthy use their economic power without having to fear a political power capable of countering it. But every once in a while the stars come into alignment and there comes a time when conservatives are faced with a dilemma: how do we feed the pigs without compromising our high and mighty ideals?

There is no better example of the Republicans’ problems than the flip-flopping of John McCain himself. He continued to regurgitate his hands-off approach to economics (which he admits is not his strong point) up until mere hours before Bush announced the plan. “The economy is fundamentally sound.” “We don’t do bail-outs”. Then Bush drops the bomb and all of a sudden he’s the first one on board. “Well, we were forced into it.” Sure, Johnny.

Oh, by the way, did you hear that he’s a Maverick? And are you sick of that word yet? I guess a lie repeated often enough becomes truth.

The silver lining for those of us on the political left is that a party split has emerged between the trends within the Republican Party. This bailout has put Republicans in a “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” position: either sign the bailout and lose support of the libertarian side of the conservative electorate, or reject it and lose support of the monopoly capital “Reaganomists”. I sadly say that we on the Left know a thing or two about splits, and our movements have been marked from birth by sectarian infighting. It brings a kind of sadistic smile to my face to see the ultra-right drawn into this self-destructive trap, and I’m happy to know that it might cause a significant reduction in the power of Republicans to organize a united conservative movement.

I’m not hoping that this is going to cause a bunch of Republican voters to jump ship to the Democratic side. That wouldn’t be very logical. But at least I can hope that some of them will be suddenly exposed to the truth about where the loyalties of the ultra-right lie. Once the seed of doubt is planted, maybe some of them will eventually come around.

One can hope.

Main Street Wasilla

Another reflection on the Vice-Pres debate last night.

When I hear Sarah Palin talk about how she represents “Main Street Wasilla”, I have to laugh to myself. The past few years before I moved to Montana, I lived in Palmer, Alaska, which is another bedroom community very close to — and almost consumed by, even — Wasilla. I lived probably 15 minutes from the Palin household and I could find my way there without directions or a map (or looking for the throng of supporters/protesters camped outside her house). Naturally, I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Wasilla. My brother in law has a house out there and that part of the Mat-Su valley is where all the shopping centers, restaurants, etc. are located, so I know my way around the town pretty good. But it occurs to me that I’m one of the few Americans who actually know what Wasilla is all about, and I’m afraid a lot of my fellow citizens have a bit of a misconception.

Wasilla is not the magical land of John McCain’s youth where you go down to Mr. Smith’s Drugstore and share a malt with your sweetheart for a nickel. It’s the same trashy suburban sprawl full of big-box stores and shitty chain fast food that pops up along any highway leading out of any other metro center in any other state. (I don’t say that condescendingly; I prefer the company of ”Valley Trash” over the yuppies or wannabe gang bangers in Anchorage.) Some people who live there still delude themselves into thinking they are real pioneers on the “last frontier” as they drive over inconveniently placed boulevards in their F-450 Superduties with monster truck tires and 3 foot lifts, but they’re wrong. The little village where the Iditarod was born has turned into just another generic mess of chain stores and subdivisions.

So let’s examine what’s really on Main Street in Wasilla. Well, first of all, there’s not much on Main Street in Wasilla. It is certainly not THE main street (look it up on Mapquest). Main street, in case you actually care about the geography fo the town, is practically just a thoroughfare which links the main drag, the Parks Highway, to Knik-Goose Bay road (KGB road leads off into subdivision land where one of the “bridges to nowhere” would have gone). So instead, let’s look at the actual main street, the Parks. So what kind of friendly, mom & pop small businesses inhabit the commercial strip of Wasilla? Fred Meyer (owned by Kroger), Safeway, Lowe’s. McDonalds. IHOP. Wal-Mart. Target, which now stands where a mall full of mostly mom & pop stores used to be. So when Sarah Palin talks about how she comes from ”Main Street Wasilla”, you should know whose interests she really represents.

In a way, though, this means that Sarah comes from the same place as most other middle Americans. It’s not like the Palins live in a log cabin, laying a bear skin rug down on the dirt floor for the babies to play on. Todd Palin might like moose hunting and dog sledding, I don’t know, but I’m sure at least 9 nights out of 10 they get their dinner from the supermarket. It took it a while longer to get there, but Wasilla could easily be mistaken for any other suburb. I’ve seen where she lives and it’s nothing fancy, just your average nice suburban home, and so far we have no reason believe that an oilfield contractor built it for her for free. Basically, she could be any other 40-something hometown girl. 

Great! Good for her. That doesn’t mean that she represents the class interests of working America. Someone’s background doesn’t necesarilly corellate with the class interests they would represent while in power. Look at most of the European fascist movements that led to WWII: they come from working-class street kids, but they certainly didn’t lead to working-class governments. On the flip side, the leader of the first great proletarian revolution — Lenin — was no proletarian. The whole reason he had time to write books and lead an underground revolutionary movement was that he had inherited enough money to avoid getting a day job.

The point is, a person can be part of one class and have an ideology that belongs to another. Marx calls this “false conciousness”. The Palins have held fast to the ideology of Reaganism throughout their struggles, and the Paty has rewarded them for their loyalty. Now they’re set for life as part of the new wave of Republican party elite. (The best that most small-town Republicans can expect from their party is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick).

So, to sum it all up, I think that Sarah Palin is telling the truth when she says she represents “main street” Wasilla: Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Safeway — that’s who rules the strip in Wasilla and I believe that she really does represents their interests.