By Kim Scipes
After this week’s Democratic National Convention—which went well on their terms for what the Democratic leaders wanted—I strongly believe Kamala Harris will defeat Donald Trump for the presidency. When one looks seriously at her fundraising (almost $500 million in a month), trends in poll numbers, people volunteering to knock on doors, enthusiasm, a successful convention (again, on their terms), media support (especially MSNBC and the New York Times, for example), and especially new first-time voters, this looks like Harris will win. (Trump’s insane personal attacks on Harris, especially her race and gender, are hurting his political standing, especially among independent voters.) This obviously does not guarantee a Harris-Walz victory but assumes they will continue and expand their efforts; it will be a close election but likely a larger margin of victory than many pundits expect.
That behooves us on the left—however defined—to begin thinking now about our strategy going forward: how are we going to proceed in response to Harris’ victory?
This is a question not often asked; it seems most on the left have no strategy or an inadequate one at best.
Strategy
The idea of strategy is to design a plan to guide you to reach one’s self-defined final goal, overcoming your opponent’s program and attacks, while prioritizing projects, increasing fundraising, and recruiting people along the way so as to try to increase your public strength so as to help you achieve your final goal. That might be to end homelessness in one’s area, or stop a pipeline, or financially support a favorite magazine/journalism, or even elect a candidate: you must decide one’s goal. But ideally, you must have an ultimate goal of what you want to achieve: think of it as “If I were queen/king of the world, what would my successful, 100%, result look like?”
Now, we must recognize that not all people or organizations—hereafter, I’m going to talk only about organizations, no matter how small or large, with each having some concept of self-organization—share the same goals. Oftentimes, this is because they are focusing on different goals or even different levels of the same goals. In other words, while they may want to completely change the world, they aren’t now thinking of achieving that anytime soon; they are focusing a more immediate project. And that’s ok. But why are they doing this? If we were to win any of these goals, does that mean that all problems are solved? Or does it put us in a better place to build upon, to shift to something that gets us closer to our ultimate goal?
I think much of the left has limited itself to thinking only about strategy—when they even think in such terms—to win immediate goals. And while that is good, I argue it is terribly, terribly insufficient.
I think we need to move from thinking about “where we are” and how do we move forward and move to thinking about “where we want to be; what do we ultimately seek to be…?, and then ask how do our various campaigns move us toward that ultimate goal, with each strengthening us and making our victory more likely? And who can we work together with so as to have ultimate impact…?
So, this means we need to decide our ultimate goal and then, if you will, work backwards. For example, there have been something like 70 empires in the course of world history; my ultimate goal would be to ensure that there are no more empires in the world. That obviously is a global view and, I’d argue, be worth fighting toward.
But I also recognize that’s probably too much for most of us to take on right now; perhaps for the foreseeable future, we (Americans) should focus on addressing the role of the United States in the world: I argue that the United States is the heartland of the US Empire.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for comparing the US Empire to the Roman Empire, which was based on extensive territorial domination and acquisition, I’ll quickly point out that the US Empire is definitely not based on these factors; it is, however, based on political and economic domination.
This is important to understand: if you seek only political and economic domination then you do not have to dominate territories, which can add extensive costs to the empire, both economic and political. So, political and economic domination is cheaper and less transparent than territorial domination.
I claim the US is the heartland of the US Empire. If you examine the role of the US in the post-World War II period since 1945, although it is projected in the media and by government officials as just another country, its entire foreign policy has been based on dominating the other countries of the world. And this has been economically, politically, culturally, diplomatically, and militarily.
This has been summed up powerfully by the historian Alfred W. McCoy in his wonderful and highly recommended 2017 book Shadows of the American Century, who points out that
“Calling a nation that controls nearly half of the planet’s military forces and much of its wealth an ‘empire’ became nothing more than fitting an analytical frame to appropriate facts.” Further, “a surprising consensus among established scholars of US foreign policy had formed. The question was no longer whether the United States was an empire, but how Washington might best preserve or shed its global domination” (p. 44).
Yet, if one accepts the concept of empire—which I think is the best way to understand the US’ role in the post-World War II world—then we must confront some of the limitations of Marxism as well as identity politics; in other words, we must challenge some of the legacy of the left, especially since so many of us “Vietnam generation” (born between 1946 and very early 1952 and currently in our 70s) activists overwhelmingly came through some version of Marxism.
I do not claim to be a scholar of Marxism; that said, I have read a lot of Marx as well as successors over the years. While I question much of the work of “successors,” I have only the highest regard for Karl and the work he and Friedrich Engels produced, even as I’ve come to question important aspects of it over the years. But for our purposes here, to the best of my knowledge, Marx never grappled with the concept of empire in any developed way. Lenin tried to do so through development of the concept of “imperialism,” but Lenin’s concept is an economistic one, by which he prioritizes economics over everything else. (I recognize that, in practice, many Marxists go beyond Lenin’s economistic understanding of imperialism, but I confine my comments here to Marxist theory.) Doing so, I argue, precludes the understanding of the role of politics and political domination in our understanding of imperialism.
I have been a proponent of the Dutch-born scholar, Jan Nederveen Pieterse (unhyphenated, double last name), for over 30 years since I met him and came across his masterpiece, Empire and Emancipation: Power and Liberation on a World Scale (Praeger, 1989) while studying for my master’s degree in The Netherlands in the early 1990s. Nederveen Pieterse sees imperialism as not being limited to economics but recognizes the interaction of economics and politics; sometimes economics is the more important factor, but sometimes politics is the more important factor. Thus, he incorporates some of the important findings of Marxism into his analysis, but transcends it, by adding to it the concept of politics, which includes cultural, diplomatic, and military domination along with the political. Thus, he enriches our understanding of imperialism, going beyond that of Marxists.
Yet most Marxists, if I may generalize, have yet to engage with Nederveen Pieterse’s work, which has not been popularized in the US. I (as well as others) have expanded and developed his work further in a number of publications, but thinkers have been unwilling mostly to engage my work either. In short, because of this unwillingness to challenge Marxist theory, our understanding of imperialism is theoretically limited. And I argue we need to have an intellectual debate between these two approaches to imperialism.
Why this is important gets to the heart of my argument: to accurately understand the role of the United States in today’s world, we must engage with the concept of imperialism: not all countries have equal political and economic power, and the stronger have historically dominated the weaker. For example, by 1915, every country in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East except three (Ethiopia, Siam/Thailand, and Persia/Iran) had been dominated by another country, whether by those in Western Europe; their “settler colonies” of the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and after 1948, Israel; and Japan. To ignore this is to distort and misunderstand world history over the past 500+ years. (Accordingly, instead of using the UN’s sanitized terminology of developed and developing countries, I argue the need to use “imperial” and “formerly colonized” countries, as the large majority of those colonized have gotten at least their political independence from their colonizer.)
My argument, succinctly, is that the US is the heartland of the US Empire, and until we on the left accept that reality, we have only an incomplete and inaccurate of the US role in the world: coming out of World War II as having the single most developed economy—by the early 1050s, the US produced as many goods and services as the rest of the world combined—along with a global Navy and Air Force, as well as soon (1947) the CIA, the US has been seeking to dominate the countries of the world since at least 1945.
Thus, I argue that our key strategic target should be the ending of the US Empire.
Should we on the left come to a common understanding of this, it would give us significant benefits. First, it gives our multi-faceted yet fragmented left a common target, upon which we can focus upon and through which we can seek common ground. It would allow us to take a global approach to ending domination and oppression across the world, organically uniting with oppressed peoples everywhere. And this understanding would allow us to begin the assault on the insane level of military spending by this country.
I have gone through all of this to lay the groundwork for a practical understanding of our common “mission.”
Three Issues to Advance Our Struggle
I argue that there are three, interconnected issues to advance a left program: the climate crisis, our economic situation, and limiting and ultimately ending the US Empire. To be clear, this strategy proposal is based on the necessity of winning large portions of the American people to our side; it rejects the general concept of “armed struggle” or any other fantasies.
Let’s start with the US Empire. Until we disaggregate the United States (the country) from the US Empire, we cannot get people in general to reject the massive amounts of money being consumed by the “military-industrial complex.” The elites have long established that the US is threatened by other countries and that we can only defend our “freedoms” by a strong military: all you need to do is watch a tape of the fourth day of this year’s Democratic National Convention to have that shoved in one’s face, along with the nationalism and celebration of militarism. The problem is that is a lie. While we can theoretically debate whether any other country could destroy us by nuclear attack—noting that the US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons against another—what cannot be seriously questioned is that any other country could invade and conquer us.
Arguably, the greatest water-borne invasion in the world was that of Normandy in 1944; US-led forces had to cross 20 miles of the English Channel, dominated by the US Navy and with almost total air superiority, to land in France to attack German forces. Yet it almost failed; General Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander, carried a letter of resignation in his jacket on June 6 to submit to President Roosevelt in case it failed. Think about that: 20 miles.
Now, if Russia or China—today’s supposed protagonists—or anyone else were to attempt to invade the United States, they would have to ferry massive numbers of troops (millions probably) over thousands of miles of hostile waters and in the face of the greatest, the best trained, and most experienced Navy and Air Force in world history. Should they be able to succeed (which is unimaginable but play along with me), then they have to face 340 million Americans (and other allies), who have more guns than people, and who are very nationalist with a considerable number still racist, and who would go crazy on their asses. And then they would have to fight over thousands and thousands of square miles of American soil. Put like that, no (expletive deleted) way!
But until we disaggregate the country from the Empire, this argument cannot be made: after all, the US military is “defending” us.
When the argument is made that the US Empire is trying to dominate other countries, and that we are spending trillions of dollars to do so—and bankrupting our country in the meantime trying to do this—then we have a chance to successfully get the US public to reject the Empire, although obviously, it will take time to win them to this position. But, I argue, it is winnable.
Tied to the issue of the Empire, is the economic situation of the United States. The United States is only in as good of economic situation as it is due to writing “hot checks.”
Let me explain, and here we must consider some economic language, that of deficits and surpluses, along with national debt. They are simple to understand if you will give some attention.
Every year, the US government develops a budget to guide its spending and tax policies. (This is similar to your household budget, only with a lot more zeros!) Governmental officials decide what they want to spend money on each year , based on administration priorities, roughly based on how much money they expect to raise by taxes. At the end of the fiscal year—September 30 of each year—they will determine if they spent more money than they took in from taxes, a deficit, or if they brought more money in through taxes than they spent, a surplus. And they will add each surplus/deficit to a cumulative score called the National Debt, that has existed since the US became an independent nation in 1789.
What does that show? Between 1789 and 1981—from George Washington’s first administration to the end of Jimmy Carter’s, a period of 192 years—the US national debt was $909 billion or $ .9 trillion: less than $1 trillion. This includes all wars fought by the US during this time—the War of 1812, the Civil War, the war against the Native Americans on the Plains, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, World War I, World War II, and the wars in Korea and Vietnam—plus the Tennessee Valley Authority (which electrified parts of the South), the Interstate Highway Program, and the US Space Program, and anything else the various presidents favored. All total, less than $1 trillion.
Things changed in 1981, with the installation of Ronald Reagan after the 1980 election: in eight years (1981-1989), after reckless military spending while massively cutting taxes on corporations and the rich, Reagan doubled the National Debt, going from $ .9 trillion to $2.7 trillion, after claiming to be a fiscal conservative! (When considering this, you cannot include the initial amount, only that going beyond it.) Each subsequent president, both Democratic and Republican, has increased the National Debt. The New York Times recently reported that the US National Debt now exceeds $35 trillion! So, in little over 40 years, the National Debt has increased by over $34 trillion. And it continues to grow.
In other words, the US economy—which is said incessantly by the mainstream media to be “the strongest in the world today”—is doing as well as it is, not because of solid economic production but because the various political administrations have been spending more money than they’ve taken in; in effect, doing as well as we are—and many people are still suffering—because of writing “hot checks” or “insufficient funds.”
And US direct spending on the US military, from Reagan to 2022 under Biden—before the war in the Ukraine—totaled $18.3 trillion, and this doesn’t include veterans’ benefits and other costs, nor the cost of nuclear weapons.
As long as other countries accept this—and it helps keep their economies afloat as well—then we can keep writing our hot checks; and the American public will be none the wiser. But I can’t imagine it will go on forever. Why I don’t think any country would intentionally bring down the world economy by revealing that the Emperor (the US) has no clothes, what I worry about is something unintentional doing so; such as the conditions that almost brought down the global economy in 2007-08. Thus, our economic well-being is a risk to our national security and well-being.
Now, all of this ties into the climate crisis. The reality is that our global economic system (capitalism) is threatening the very extermination of humans, animals, and most plants on the planet by the end of this century, and this is being led by the United States (see my June 22, 2024 video at https://znetwork.org/zvideo/the-climate-crisis-capitalism-or-human-animal-most-plants-survival). We know, for example, that the more Carbon Dioxide (CO 2) put into the atmosphere, the more the Earth’s temperature will rise. [The atmosphere protects the Earth, diverting most solar power (light and heat) into outer space. For over 800,000 years—no misprint!—the proportion of CO2 inside the atmosphere never exceeded 300 parts per million (ppm). Since 1911, this proportion has never gone below 300 ppm; and NASA says that, in mid-August 2024, it is at 426 ppm!] This assures the planet will continue to heat up.
Economic growth is fueled by what are called “fossil fuels” (oil, coal, and methane) that, when burned, emit “greenhouse gases” (such as CO 2, methane or CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) and water vapor. These greenhouse gases attack the very atmosphere that protects the Earth, letting more solar energy inside the atmosphere, warming the planet. This warming, in turn, heats the oceans, melts the glaciers, adds energy into hurricanes and typhoons adding to their destructive power, and ultimately traps more heat inside the atmosphere, which adds to the problem.
In other words, to protect the current standard of living of Americans, whose support is crucial to supporting the US Empire, our governments—under both parties—are spending more and more money to dominate the other countries of the world, based on a “hot check” economy and not solid economic growth, and in turn, this economy threatens the very existence of humans, animals, and most plants on the planet. What could possibly go wrong…?
Where to Now?
I argue that a left strategy needs to take on the US Empire in a conscious manner. I think we can argue to the US people that we can either afford the Empire or we can take care of the American people, but we cannot do both. My experience, especially teaching at a regional university in Northwestern Indiana over the past 18 ½ years, has shown that, when presented this information, most Americans will choose to take care of other Americans, not to dominate the world. Thus, I think we must challenge the massive war spending—I refuse to call it “defense”—to demand at least a 90% cut in this spending.
At the same time, we have to demand that taxes be raised dramatically on corporations and the rich: to hell with this “fair share” shit! I propose that we fight to raise the tax rate to 100% of all incomes above $500,000 for a couple, and $300,000 for an individual, plus 90% of corporate income, with no corporation paying less than 50% of profits. We have to use this money to take care of all of our people, and we have to drastically reduce the National Debt. Not to do that endangers the well-being of most of us and leaves our country at unintended risk.
And finally, we have to repudiate our capitalist economic system, and reduce production to the bare minimum. (We must give people in the formerly colonized countries more space to grow to overcome the decades if not centuries of exploitation and oppression from the imperial countries, but ultimately, they will have to reduce their production once the necessities have been provided to their peoples; but we in the US must reduce now, while addressing historical inequities inside the US along the way.) We cannot keep emitting greenhouse gases as is and would prioritize such emissions for public projects at the direct expense of individual, personal projects such as mansions or commercial endeavors. I believe we can cut our workforce such that people will only have to work one year out of every four, supported by the taxes on the wealthy and corporations that would provide an annual income double of the poverty threshold today (and meaning that something like half of our people would get an increased income!).
Back to Strategy
If the analysis of one if not all of these three issues makes sense, then we have to develop our strategy to achieve it/them. (I acknowledge that there could be other issues deserving focus, so I hope others will challenge these.) What I’m arguing is that these are three key issues, and we must make sure whatever programs/projects we initiated work to move us toward reaching these goals (or others so widely accepted).
But we also have to look at what we need to have the best chance of achieving any of these strategic goals. Four come to mind and must be included in our analysis.
1. We want to welcome all who seek to join us, and we want to work to enhance the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion in each organization. The basis of our interpersonal politics should be on the basis of respect.
2. We need to support and develop our alternative media. Obviously, this includes money. But we want to encourage each media outlet to prioritize the goals we want to achieve; in other words, they need to be responsive to their readers/listeners. Their time, people and money are limited, so they need to prioritize our strategic goals. This is most important for established activists so as to keep them as informed as possible, but it also allows us to reach inside the general public. We must strategize on what we can do to expand their base, and then do so.
3. We need to build organizations and train our people. Obviously, not everybody we reach out to is going to accept our analysis. But some will. We want to get them involved. They should have a place to come to so as to be able to talk, learn about the organization, etc. This could be an office, or it could be a community cultural center, but there needs to be a place. This is important.
And then, they need to be trained. Every group should ask itself what are the skills and information people need to be successful activists? We need to confront any forms of racism, misogyny, and homophobia, much less nationalism; we need to get them to treat everyone they interact with respectfully. We need to provide such, and always look out for the well-being of our people, always seeking to enhance their skills to the maximum they seek. Remember, you want to take care of the people who take care of (i.e., contribute most to) the organization.
4. Finally, we need to seek out ways to develop our programs, reach out to new people, and move our organizations to achieve their goals. We must teach our activists how to think critically; we want people to be able to think on their own and to have the confidence that others want a chance to hear what they have to say. And we need to always seek new recruits.
—
In short, we need to establish “ultimate goals” and then consciously move toward attaining such. We cannot just flounder around from one thing to the other without understanding their relationships: we don’t have the time, the energy, the resources, or the capacity to attack all bad things. We need to prioritize some, while rejecting others, and then strategizing how to achieve these goals.
We really have no alternative!
—
Kim Scipes, PhD, a former sociologist and printer, is a long time labor and political activist, who has been published widely in the US and around the world.
26 August 2024
Source: countercurrents.org
