With the economy struggling and gas prices soaring, the American public is completely fed up with the continuation of the imperialist wars that the U.S. government is involved in. While people in the streets and in the workplaces struggle to provide themselves and their children with food, the government feebly attempts to stimulate the economy, but they are far more concerned with reaping profits from the vast stockpiles of oil in Iraq than with the needs of the public. In these conditions, the American working class is more than ready for change, and a prominent figure in the Democratic Party has emerged and has given hope to millions of people. His name is Barack Obama.
Obama’s charismatic promise of change has convinced a large portion of the left that in order to achieve their long term goals, they must rally behind Obama. But this will not help to advance the anti-war and revolutionary movements; it will lead those movements into complete stagnancy. Obama and the Democratic Party are representatives of the rich ruling class of big-time capitalists, people who have no desire whatsoever to end the imperialist wars, because they see them as an investment for future gains, i.e. economic leverage gained by having completely control over the Middle East‘s vast oil resources.. It is an illusion that the Democratic Party can be changed into a party of the people, and thus, supporting candidates like Obama would be a step backward for the anti-war movement.
It is by now common knowledge that the Republican Party is a party of imperialism and war, but it has also become increasingly obvious that the Democrats are guilty of the same thing. The Democratic Party as a whole has consistently supported the war in Iraq since day one. The only real attempt at “opposition” to the war was their “non-binding” resolution to oppose Bush’s troop surge, but when that resolution was a flop, they turned around and gave Bush and the Republicans exactly what they wanted. Before and since, the Democrats’ only “opposition” to the war in Iraq has been that the current strategies aren’t “working,” and their plans for “change” have merely been different ways to achieve the same imperialist goals as the Republicans: securing Iraq’s oil and establishing a permanent military base in the region.
To understand this, one must understand that all politicians in both parties are representatives of the bourgeoisie, the rich ruling class of big-time capitalists like those that run American big business. It is no secret that to win an election, one must raise money, and lots of it. To attain this money, candidates must gain the support of the people with the money, i.e. big business. The war in Iraq puts the United States in control of the country’s oil, which represents an extremely valuable investment that the ruling class will not willingly give up. To gain the funds necessary to run for office, all candidates must gain the support of the ruling class by pandering to its interests. The Democratic Party is not an exception to this. Nobody is claiming that the two parties are the same, but the Democrats simply represent a liberal alternative to achieving the goals of the ruling class: the same goals that the Republicans support. For example, big leaders in the Democratic Party (like Pelosi) have consistently voted to escalate the war and have even been at the forefront of some of this pro-war legislation. Whether or not the government continues its imperialist war effort is not dependent upon what particular administration holds office. Rather, the problem of war is rooted in the very economic system that we live in a system that needs to expand and secure its “fix“ from other areas of the world, and neither party is going to change that.
There are a number of “progressive” candidates in the Democratic Party (including Obama) who mouth off a bit about Bush and the war in Iraq, and in doing so, they give hope to a lot of Americans. But these candidates are on a leash, and they have a special role: to put an anti-war façade on the Democratic Party so that behind the scenes, it can go on passing pro-war legislation. These “progressives” are allowed to mouth off in hopes of promoting the illusion that if activists lay down their militancy and kiss the asses of various politicians, that the Democratic Party can be transformed into a party of the masses. Yet, what these “progressives” say has no real bearing on the legislation that the Democratic Party passes, as the Party is careful to make sure that the interests of the ruling class are served no matter what.
For example, in March of 2007, the media reported on a meeting between House Speaker Pelosi and some of the “progressive” Democrats. In it, the “progressives” agreed to make sure that Pelosi’s $100 billion escalation of the Iraq war passed in the “Out of Iraq Caucus.” Then, when the Party was sure that the bill would pass, they allowed these “progressives” to vote against the bill when it reached the floor. This is a prime example of how the Democrats use their “progressives” to promote themselves as an anti-war party only when they are sure that their pro-war legislation will pass anyway!
More recently, the Senate (which is controlled by the Democrats) rejected a resolution that would pressure Bush to begin troop withdrawal, and then they easily approved a $165 billion war-funding bill. Bush plans to veto the bill due to some domestic programs that are attached to it, but military leaders are confident that they will get their war funding one way or another.[1] Further, even though there are Democrats talking of “withdrawal,” their plans leave thousands of troops in the region, and while Obama is allegedly committed to a withdrawal of combat troops within 16 months, his plan is full of escape clauses that free him from that responsibility. Obama, the Democrats, and the ruling class have no reason to be ending the war any time soon.
Still, many anti-war groups insist that supporting candidates like Obama will make it easier for change to happen in the future. But by supporting Obama, the mainstream anti-war movement is showing the Democrats that they don’t need to change anything they’re doing, because the anti-war movement (potentially their biggest threat) already supports them! If Obama is elected president, he will likely find that he has no choice but to continue the war in Iraq. Regardless of what his personal beliefs may be, he is a tool used by the Democratic Party and the ruling class of capitalists to give imperialism a friendlier face. Any promises of change are an illusion, because the ruling class does not want the war to end. If the anti-war movement fails to address this, fails to break from the economic and political system that leads to war, and instead rallies around Barack Obama, the politicians will be allowed to continue passing pro-war legislation, because the anti-war movement will not be a threat. In other words, if we cannot show the ruling class and all of its representatives that we do not support them and their interests, and that we are a threat, then they have absolutely no reason to end the war.
“We have a couple of immediate basic tasks: Obama must be the Democratic Party candidate—By Any Means Necessary. We should plan to camp right outside of Denver during the Democratic Party’s Convention and hold anti-war demonstrations and our own left convention. If right wing Democrats try to force Hilary-Herbert Humphrey-Clinton on us we march on the convention and make sure Obama gets the nomination–By Any Means Necessary. In November, we must make sure Obama defeats the war criminal John McCain. And finally, after the election, we must be prepared to convene anywhere in the country ( Florida , Ohio etc.) to make sure that the Supreme Court does not decide the contest.”[2]
This is a perfect example of how mainstream anti-war organizations are giving up their militancy (i.e. they refuse to break from the economic and political system of imperialism) in favor of kissing ass. Yet these organizations will often claim that they recognize that Obama is an imperialist politician who serves the class interests of the capitalists. They claim that their hands are clean, and that they are not claiming that the Democratic Party can be fundamentally changed. But they are allowing politicians like Obama to promote the liberal illusion that the Democratic Party can be changed into a party of the people, and they do not challenge this position in any way. Instead, they are rallying around Obama! So indirectly, they are promoting liberal illusions through their failure to make a decisive break from the Democratic Party.
This is comparable to the progressive movements in the U.S. immediately before the government’s involvement in WWI. Woodrow Wilson was running for president on an “anti-war” program, and the American progressive movement felt that because of this, they would have to support him. Yet this ignored the reality that the ruling class wanted the U.S. to enter WWI one way or another, and that Wilson was an agent of that class. They did nothing to awaken people to this, and within six months, Wilson had entered the U.S. into the thick of WWI. Like then, if we do not break entirely from imperialism and its agents now, we will stagnate and the government will continue to do as it pleases and continue the war in Iraq.
Regardless of whether or not you as individuals choose to vote in November, we must realize that what is needed at this time in the anti-war movement is mass organization and mass action that breaks from both imperialist parties and the entire economic and political system under which we live. Only in this way will we show the ruling class and its representatives that we are a threat. If we are serious about an end to the Iraq war, than we must cut our ties completely with the Democratic Party and its allies.
FOOTNOTES
1 http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=181093
2 From the article “OBAMA 2008: BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY: An Appeal For Revolutionary Unity” by Keith Joseph (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/now-the-debate-over-obama/)
