The Tea Party movement is not “extreme right”

Former Clinton cabinet official Robert Reich was on National Public Radio in an interview yesterday. Without calling it “corporatism,” Reich nonetheless came the closest to addressing corporatism with his discussion of what he calls the “Mad as Hell Party,” which he says the Tea Party movement and extreme left can join.

Reich correctly points out that the left distrusts Big Business and the right distrusts Big Government, so when Big Government bails out Big Business, both left and right can be disgusted. The unprincipled and naive of the Obamautons believe their movement is “progressive” when nothing could be further from the truth. They are recycling fascism.

Real socialists and communists should recall that corporatism is distinct from worker control. We did not see any worker uprising when Obama recently strengthened government ownership of the GM financial arm. What we have seen is maybe a handout to some unions, the labor bureaucracy and labor aristocracy — especially at Chrysler. Such benefits the Democratic Party’s narrow special interest base of control.

We did not see any heightened worker self-determination, that being impossible anyway when Amerikans with legal working rights are not exploited. So in other words, the corporatist Democrats handed over benefits for their Democratic Party as their underlying motivation and figleaf for spreading corporatism into practice.

The only part that I disagree with in Reich’s opinion piece preceding Obama’s State of the Union address is that the Tea Party movement is “extreme right.” The Tea Party movement people are passionate conservative Liberals opposed to corporatism, which is the economic organization of fascism. “Extreme right” would be David Duke and the Strasserites — fascists.

True, Hitler offered up anti-communism that would also appeal to the Tea Party movement. We should be careful to distinguish what is unique to fascism and what is not or we will end up taking a failed anti-fascist strategy. Anti-communism existed before fascism. Likewise, the pro-union sentiments that Strasser exploited so well existed before fascism. What is unique about Obama fascism is that it appeals to the Democratic Party interest groups including vague pro-union sentiments ungrounded in an analysis of exploitation and it harnesses those sentiments for corporatism — not worker uprisings or worker control or worker democracy.

The “extreme right” put Obama in power and regardless of figleafs regarding vague pro-union sentiments. If anything, Strasser’s claim to being “progressive” would have been greater than Obama’s because at the time, there was a better case for worker exploitation, especially in the Great Depression in which Strasser lived.

  • If anyone can name anyone who has done more than Barack Obama and Bob Avakian to popularize lynching in the North since 1965, I’d like to know about it.

  • If anyone can name anybody other than Barack Obama who has put a more popular face on corporatism since 1945, I’d like to hear about it.

  • If anyone can name anyone more responsible for shutting down the MIM website, the leading communist website of the West in terms of traffic if we exclude historical reference sites, if anyone can point to someone more responsible for that repression than the Obamautons, we’d like to hear about it.

    It is incontrovertible historical fact that Hitler infiltrated and took over the leadership of the German Social Democratic Party. Hitler’s number two Strasser was especially adept in positive references to Stalin and worker economic demands. If we go over to the Huffington Post today, we will see some of the same thing where soft-headed “progressives” demonstrate all the same illness as cleared the way for Hitler.


  • %d bloggers like this: