Again on anti-Amerikanism as strategy opening the way to diplomacy

We cannot say that anti-Amerikanism is a principle for all time or even the entirety of capitalism. 200 years ago, Amerikans were not the plurality of the international exploiter class. 600 years ago the First Nations lived without the settlers.

Today, the Amerikans are the plurality of the world’s exploiters. Amerikkkans are the first 5% of the world one should think of as the problem of reaction. From this class analysis flows a strategy of anti-Amerikkkanism.

Mao taught us to oppose the imperialist wars in the imperialist countries while supporting People’s Wars in the Third World. The anti-Amerikkkan strategy also encapsulates these principles in a way that other strategic approaches or non-approaches cannot.

When one decides an important political question based on intra-individual comparisons and not on class forces, one is a Liberal whether one knows it or not. Anglo-Saxon pragmatism or a lack of principles and scientific guidance often says to choose “the lesser evil,” as in lesser evils among individuals. This approach is wrong unless the individuals actually represent different class forces.

Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama are both Black liberal Democrats. They represent the same class forces in Amerika and support the same 50%+1 strategy. One abandons social movement principles whenever one says to cover up group oppression to suit a subjective intra-individual preference.

MIM is calling for Barack Obama to be exposed to the world. This is suitable because of what has gone wrong in diplomacy. There is no exploited nation that should negotiate with the United $tates if the United $tates will not at least deal in political currency.

Recently, Congressional Republicans chided Obama for taking a hard verbal stance on I$rael’s settlements in East Jerusalem.(1) This problem indicates why it is wrong to get involved in lesser-evilism. Where displacements and euphemisms abound, the two parties easily make trades among themselves and avoid change. They also protect Amerika’s reputation.

When two parties take part in peace negotiations, both risk their reputations. The Peoples’ Wars risk falling apart, but Amerikans take part without risking anything.

Partisanship is not a substitute for anti-Amerikkkanism as a strategic path to creating a stable bridge to diplomacy. In 2008, someone was able to tarnish me in the midst of
my attempts to assist Palestinian negotiations, and from all appearances, that effort via my third lyncher was to benefit a Democratic Party campaign, partisanship. We followers of Lenin and Mao have to think how it is inside rich countries that we create stable support for political solutions ending occupations and wars.

Those of us for the status quo in Amerikan foreign policy favor partisanship, in which all political capital for change dies in an exchange of favors between the RNC and DNC. The exchange could end up being domestic issues for domestic issues.

Even on the surface, such a path disables what according to Rasmussen Reports is the largest segment of the U.$. political population, the independent section. The independents supporting the peace movement have no choice but to go through the lesser-evils-two-party system say the Anglo-Saxon pragmatists. That is wrong and unfair to independents wishing to sponsor a peace movement.

In contrast, we anti-Amerikkkans see something else and better. The social movement advances not by handing out salaries paid for by Third World peoples. The social movement advances by exposing Amerikkkanism regardless of the individual political leaders. Instead of obsessing whether or not Obama is a tad better than Jackson or vice-versa, one should seek to bring to light group level truths, regardless of which individual is in power.

The anti-war wing of the Democratic Party has been ineffective these past 100 years. Partisanship would only be worth something if the Democratic Party’s anti-war wing managed to take up anti-Amerikkkanism as a strategy for the peace movement and diplomacy.

MIM does not believe anti-Amerikkkanism is too much to sell to Liberals. After all, there are a variety of Black liberal Democrats who could replace Obama, and that is exactly what makes the anti-Amerikkkan strategy a possibility, an improved approach to diplomacy than what the Democratic Party has offered so far. There is always another individual with roughly the same Democratic Party ideology available. Democrats should realize that and incorporate that thinking in their diplomacy.

The exploited nations will not and should not come to the peace table without minimum possibilities of political chips in play. Finding individualists willing to take up a Democratic Party career is easy, while political chips that would keep someone at the negotiating table are rare. Without the threat of a loss of Amerikan reputation and without prompt exposure of Amerikkkanism when negotiations break down and end, there is no reason for exploited nations to negotiate with U.$. imperialism: they can only lose.



One Response to “Again on anti-Amerikanism as strategy opening the way to diplomacy”

  1. The current diplomatic situation « Mimdefense’s Weblog Says:

    […] MIM has proposed with anti-Amerikan diplomacy is a kind of minimal step, a step of strengthening diplomacy by removing it from the grips of the […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: