Hi Carl,

Thanks for your reply. I believe it serves the movement to have our differences in the open.

> I would argue that there is something new on the rise,
> ie, a truly global capitalist class-in-the making,
> a force with no national loyalties.

This is an interesting analysis and it may even contain a particle or two of truth. However, George Soros notwithstanding, the bourgeoisie remains organized on a national basis and this is not going to substantially change within our lifetimes.

Lenin summed it up in his famous book on imperialism. National economies (and the ability to wage war) grow at an uneven rate and result in redivisions of hegemony over global resources (such as labor markets and petroleum). These redivisions sometimes take place without war -- but recourse to war is inevitable because there is no other way to determine, with certainty, which imperialist power is strong enough to win. The only way to end war is to overthrow the economic and political system of imperialism. And this means doing away with the class rule of the bourgeoisie. This is the bottom line and it will not be changed by fancy talk about the development of a global capitalist class. This notion was wrong when it was advanced by Karl Kautsky. Guess what? It is still wrong today.

> I think this is not the time to stress the 'unity'
> of the bourgeois' and to minimize their so-called
> 'squabbles.' A much different course and way of
> seeing thing is required at this time in our history.

For activists like you, Carl, there never is a good time to create clarity on the nature of our enemy.

I find it very enlightening that a social-democrat like you, Carl, defends the analysis of the RCP -- which holds that the fascist danger is so great that activists must give up a sober appraisal of the class interests and class forces which shape modern society and which enable Bush and company to carry our war abroad and to increase repression at home.

The bourgeoisie promotes the theory of "two power centers". The political trend of social-democracy (which is subservient to bourgeois interests) promotes the idea that we can ally ourselves to one of these power centers in order to defeat the other.

This is the biggest and oldest con game in the world.

This is the theory promoted by the Democratic Party and its army of reformist apologists. Instead of building a movement which is independent of bourgeois influence and oriented toward the working class, the reformists preach to us that we should unite with powerful forces who will supposedly help us "defeat Bush" if we only give up our independence and principles and allow ourselves to be blindfolded and lobotomised. This is the lie used by the Democratic Party to suck the life and militancy out of the antiwar movement.

My opposition to the main point of the RCP's leaflet (ie: the promotion of hysteria about impending fascism) was centered on the fact that this analysis tended to support the idea that we should unite with "powerful forces" to "defeat the fascist threat". The RCP did not spell this out in so many words. Nor does Carl spell it out in so many words. But this is Carl's line -- and it fits together with the RCP's line like two locking pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

Ben Seattle
struggle.net/ben

See related article:
"How to build a powerful antiwar movement"
struggle.net/Ben/2005/0120-how-to.htm