[Marxism] Is it "Seven Days in May" for Obama?
jayroth6 at cox.net
Tue Oct 6 01:05:06 MDT 2009
At a recent political meeting I attended, some activists expressed their fear of whether Obama could remain in office if he denied General Stanley McChrystal's demand for 40 thousand more U.S. combat troops for Afghanistan. I thought their fears were absurd on the face of it: no president has been a bigger booster of Washington's course of war and plunder at home and abroad than Obama. Why else would he have the job?
And now I read here http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/pers-o06.shtml :
"Growing tensions between sections of the military brass and the Obama administration have emerged openly in the conflict between the top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, and the White House.
"McChrystal's increasingly strident demands for as many as 40,000 additional troops, capped by his speech last week in London before the International Institute for Strategic Studies, drew rebukes Sunday from Obama's national security adviser, retired Marine General James L. Jones, and Monday from the secretary of defense, Robert Gates.
"Although neither official mentioned McChrystal by name, both made it clear that his public campaigning for more troops, ahead of a decision by President Obama, was a violation of the norms of subordination of serving military officers to the civilian commander in chief.
"In an appearance on CNN Sunday, Jones was asked whether it was appropriate for a uniformed officer to publicly campaign for a specific policy choice in war. Jones answered by declaring, "Ideally, it's better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."
"Gates made an even more categorical statement on Monday, telling an Army convention in Washington that both civilian and military officials had an obligation to keep their opinions private while they were engaged in advising the president."
Well, the next step had to be floated somewhere, and it has been. A former FEMA official named John L. Perry wrote this http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/rightwing-columnist-considers-anti-obama-military-coup/ :
"Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
"Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
"Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
"In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass."
This bloody shirt of Obama's "radical ideal" is a stalking horse to sow division and distract working people from a clear understanding of the class basis of the current, and growing, economic crisis: that private property's brake on social production presents us with a future of permanent crises of overproduction, unemployment, union-busting, and growing attacks on democratic rights. Perry and others on the right are busting the sod for some very dangerous developments in U.S. politics as the economic crisis deepens and blame for its toll is focused on oppressed nationalities, women, and immigrant workers.
These rightist cop- and officer-lovers are starting out with a few trial balloons against what they call "socialism" and "Obama's radical ideals." What they really target is the working class and the labor movement itself. They are not strong enough to take to the streets against picket lines and defenders of abortion clinics yet, but they understand that it is necessary today to prepare.
In a recent article http://www.workers.org/2009/us/unity_1001/ Workers World Party leader Fred Goldsten wrote:
"The social and political soil for further inflaming racism is fertile. There are short-term, specific economic interests that the health care industry and Big Oil (ExxonMobil, Chevron, etc.) have in fomenting anti-Obama sentiment, and there are long-term strategic interests that the ruling class as a whole has in stirring up racism.
"As far as the right and the ultra-right are concerned, as long as there is an African-American president in the White House and an increase in unemployment, bankruptcies and economic hardship, the basis for racist mobilization will continue to exist.
"At the same time, the economic crisis, which is striking relentlessly at the entire multinational working class, provides a profound and powerful basis for a united working-class fightback. Preparations must begin now to mount a strong, anti-racist, pro-working-class counterattack against both the economic crisis and racist division."
Whatever political activities we participate in, communists need to bring with them a militant united front perspective. In our unions, in our anti-war coalitions, in our abortion rights work, and on campuses, we need to calmy and concretely lay-out a perspective to defend our class interests. This is also the most uncompromising way to defend democratic rights for all.
"The road to beating back the racists today is the same as the road to beating back the effects of the capitalist crisis-the united class struggle and mass mobilization of a labor-community alliance," Goldstein wrote in the same article quoted above.
"White workers must recognize that racism is the tool of the class enemy. As Karl Marx wrote 150 years ago in the first volume of "Capital": "In the United States of North America, every independent movement of the workers was paralyzed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the Black it is branded."
"An injury to one is an injury to all."
More information about the Marxism