A reply to Matt Miller at the Wall Street Journal

True, a Leninist has to judge when to accept gains of a certain phase of struggle, as during the February Revolution in Russia and when to let things slide further  because the worse things get the better they get. However, Lenin was also the one who applied the labor aristocracy thesis to World War I. So in that sense it was everyone in the world except Lenin who wanted World War I to get worse, while Lenin called for a quick end. He did so by referring to both sides of the European conflict as labor aristocracy dominated. That is to say he did not care that the social-democrats had the majority of votes and parliamentary seats, while his anti-militarist faction was tiny.

Likewise, today, it is the Democrats like Obama who only pose as bipartisan for photo opps. Those with the view of both the Democrats and Republicans as mostly bourgeois are bipartisan through equal opportunity hatred of imperialism. If you pay close attention, Obama’s ideological mentor believes as Paul Krugman that the Democratic Party is the party of the working class. Never mind that Obama won because of the trepidation of the Wall Street fat cats losing out in financial crisis while McCain carried the white non-college vote 58% to 41%.

The thesis that Democrats are the party of the “working class” leads to the polarization thesis, which means partisanship advances the Marxist revolution. There could hardly be a better sabotage of Marxism on behalf of the Democratic Party. The polarization thesis is rooted in a delusion that makes a big difference.

Neither party wants to abolish cash and hence the market for weapons of mass destruction. Both are rooted in the labor aristocracy and neither can offer real socialist advance, only ersatz socialism. That is to say in the overall sense, both parties want things to get worse, and take contributions from weapons contractors. Leave it to the Amerikans to sell weapons to both sides in the Mideast for example.




%d bloggers like this: