Archive for November, 2008

Barack Obama destroyed gay marriage in California

November 6, 2008

November 6 2008
Barack Obama has not been in power a single day yet, but he has already mobilized reserves for U.$. imperialism worldwide and produced the margin of victory to ban gay marriage in California. The ban on gay marriage called “Proposition 8” passed 52.5% to 47.5%.(1) We at MIM call that regression.

Polls had indicated that gay marriage would survive in California, but Obama drew more Latino voters than expected and they provided the margin of defeat.(2)

There is a big difference between proletarian Jacobinism and Nazi conspiracy. How MIM has handled the gay issue the past two years utilized the strategy of dividing enemies. Correctly handled, the gay issue can break the back of the Republican Party that uses it. No sooner did the Republican Party suffer retaliation for its 2004 anti-gay referenda than majority-oriented Democrats punished the gay liberation struggle.

The Obamaites did not utilize Jacobin minority tactics and instead they used Nazi conspiracy to mobilize a majority. (Jacobins were a minority in the French Revolution and never had majority support.)
How the ex-Maoists handled it was directly by mobilizing a majority, and sure enough the majority voted down gay marriage in California.

MIM’s struggle on the gay question going back over 25 years is a microcosm of what happened in California. At MIM, we purged some Californians who would not uphold centralism on the lesbian liberation logo on our newspaper masthead. This caused a battle over militarization of the party. Some of the purged went on to join the Obama campaign. Today, because of the clarity of the purge, we can contrast strategies and draw conclusions. Among other things, no it is not possible to “combine two into one,” as Mao derided those who opposed struggle. We cannot have both Barack Obama with his billions in campaigning and revolution.

The Nazi conspiracists are not able to use MIM’s principal task focus on “independent institutions of the oppressed.” Instead they go through white nationalist informal channels in the banks, military corporations and White House. Through such means it is possible to obtain a majority vote, but at the cost of a proletarian outlook
and joining the major parties without self-reliance.

When one has the principal contradiction correct, one usually does not just get the benefit of being right on the main thing but also other subjects. The ban on gay marriage brought about by the Obama campaign proves that MIM is yet again correct on the principal contradiction. Obama’s Martin Luther King integrationist strategy is not only serving to mobilize political and military reserves of imperialism, but also it caused regression on the gay marriage issue.

Had the Obamaites followed the MIM line in either of two ways we would still have gay marriage in California. One, if the Obama-centered newspapers had reported on office-lynchers in the Democratic Party, we would still have gay marriage in California as the oppressed nations remembered why they do not seek to join in integration. Two, if the Obamaites had listened to MIM more directly that the international united front provided the margin of Obama’s victory through the financial crisis, then they would not have set out to mobilize a few more percentage points for reform in California, the voters who crushed gay marriage. Instead, the Obamaites gave up Maoist self-reliance and joined the Martin Luther King road.

It’s one thing when in Algeria or Iran the whole sexual culture is different and the people try to defend it against richer cultures looking down on them. It’s another thing when to recruit more troops to the military and divide super-profits more evenly, the integrationists mobilize people from a different culture to take away gay rights.

Contrary to political astrologists, the “intentions” of the leader are not the most important thing in politics. A leader must have follow-through with a social vehicle. If there is no progressive majority social vehicle in one country, not to mention a majority that can stay in contact with accountable leaders, then progress through majority-oriented one-country strategies is not possible.

Obama opposed gay marriage, and his supporters would excuse him for supposedly Jacobin tactics that MIM would say correspond to a Nazi strategy, not Jacobin strategy. Obama thus directly contributed to the rollback of gay rights in California. More importantly, because the majority he mobilized is not a social vehicle for progress, Obama probably would not have preserved gay marriage in California even if he had campaigned for it. To make progressive change, one must have a progressive vehicle. If one does not, then one should use Jacobin tactics centered on the assumption of having a minority. Otherwise, one becomes a tool of Nazis–social-fascists. In social issues, gay-bashing and lynching are prominent examples of Nazism. In economic issues, it will be breaking trade relations and backing national wealth. For example, Obama voted against the CAFTA treaty for Central American trade and has said he is going to renegotiate other treaties, just because that helped him win nationalist votes in the campaign. These are phenomena of social-fascism, not progress.

The Obama campaigners have spent more time and money doing detective work on MIM than on dividing the enemy.
Now we see the results in California.



2. Mike Swift and Sean Webby, “Black and Latino voters critical to same-sex marriage ban’s success,”