The USA 2024 Presidential Elections – Should socialists advocate election boycott?
The USA 2024 Presidential Elections – Should socialists advocate election boycott?
Abstract:
Once again as the USA presidential elections take place, conflicting views on the left have erupted. These discussions concern the political nature of the leadership of the world’s number one imperialists. Hence perforce, they concern the peoples of the entire world.
As the elections in the USA for President loom, some socialists argue vehemently against participation in these elections. They argue that the working people should abstain. Arguments used by those left-wing parties and individuals that advise workers to abstain from the election are based on two main claims:
i) Democracy has been fully exposed, and that Lenin’s analysis is hence out of date.
ii) There is no difference between the two wings of main capitalist class as represented by the Republican or the Democratic Party. While this has been a recurrent claim, it has taken special resonance in the middle of a brutal war of annihilation being waged upon the Palestinian people and their neighbours.
Since Lenin’s time, in recent years his advice to participate in bourgeois democracy is regularly mocked by some socialists. For them, the ruling parties of the capitalist class have been long exposed and no can could fail to see this. In this they argue exactly as the Ultra-leftists did in the1920’s.
Overall there is very little objective difference between the “Democratic Party”(whose candidates are for President Kamala Harris and for Vice-President Timothy Walz) and the “Republican Party” (whose candidate for president is Donald Trump and whose candidate for Vice-President is J.D.Vance).
Fundamentally both parties and candidates are aligned on the analysis of capitalism and socialism. But “very little objective difference” – is not the same as “no difference”.
We will detail more on both arguments, in particular on the current differences and similarities between the “Democratic Party” and the “Republican Party”. This therefore also demands a consideration of changes in the USA economy, which is examined in part 5 below.
We will argue that on foreign policy there is now virtually no difference between the two main parties in the USA. But that in internal domestic policies there is light to be seen between the two. This is different enough between the two parties to warrant socialists to advise workers in the USA not to abstain and vote for the “Democratic Party”. Votes for alternative parties are understandable but the major ones do not clearly embrace socialism.
Moreover there remains space for the capitalist class to rule by means of bourgeois democracy. As a whole it is not in favour of fascism. We define this following precedents below. Moreover we will argue that while Trump is not a fascist, he is undoubtedly likely to facilitate the path for fascism if he were elected.
Finally we argue that the main energy of socialists should be directed at forming a united single Marxist-Leninist party directed at the socialist revolution. But this party needs to work with united fronts and evolving ‘alternatives’ to build a broad Red Front. Marxists and socialists understand that they must work within the class, wherever the people are struggling.
1. Lenin’s arguments on bourgeois democracy and bourgeois elections
We will assume that no Marxist will quibble when we claim that Lenin had no illusions about the realities of bourgeois democracy. Lenin described it as a process:
“To decide every few years which representative of the ruling class is to misrepresent the people in parliament is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism”.
Chapter 3; ‘part 3 – Abolition of Parliamentarism’; in ‘The State and Revolution”: at: Marxist Internet Archive (hereafter MIA)
But he rejected the views of the “Left Communists” who rejected any participation in bourgeois democracy, as having a lack of a “sufficiently thoughtful” approach:
“The errors of the Left Communists are particularly dangerous at present, because certain revolutionaries are not displaying a sufficiently thoughtful, sufficiently attentive, sufficiently intelligent and sufficiently shrewd attitude toward each of these conditions.”
“Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder – “Left-Wing” Communism in Great Britain”; April–May 1920; Collected Works, Volume 31, pp. 17–118; Also at: MIA
Lenin felt it necessary to remind the “Left Communist” abstentionists of the help that the Bolsheviks obtained from participating in their own “bourgeois-democratic parliament even a few weeks before the victory of a Soviet republic” (our emphasis):
“It is an absolutely incontestable and fully established historical fact that, in September–November 1917, the urban working class and the soldiers and peasants of Russia were, because of a number of special conditions, exceptionally well prepared to accept the Soviet system and to disband the most democratic of bourgeois parliaments. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks did not boycott the Constituent Assembly, but took part in the elections both before and after the proletariat conquered political power. That these elections yielded exceedingly valuable (and to the proletariat, highly useful) political results has, I make bold to hope, been proved by me in the above-mentioned article, which analyses in detail the returns of the elections to the Constituent Assembly in Russia.
The conclusion which follows from this is absolutely incontrovertible: it has been proved that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, even a few weeks before the victory of a Soviet republic and even after such a victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarianism “politically obsolete”.
Lenin VI; “Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?” In “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder”; at MIA
It is important that socialists nowadays do not overlook Lenin’s own emphasis that even in the highly revolutionary air of Sep-Nov 1917 in Russia – the Bolsheviks “participated in a bourgeois-democratic parliament”. Lenin argued this was in order to expose the self-proclaimed social-democrats and ‘progressives’. The working class party should “support a parliamentary representative” as a “rope supports a hanged man”:
“It is true that the Hendersons, the Clyneses, the MacDonalds and the Snowdens are hopelessly reactionary. It is equally true that they want to assume power (though they would prefer a coalition with the bourgeoisie), that they want to “rule” along the old bourgeois lines, and that when they are in power they will certainly behave like the Scheidemanns and Noskes. All that is true. But it does not at all follow that to support them means treachery to the revolution; what does follow is that, in the interests of the revolution, working-class revolutionaries should give these gentlemen a certain amount of parliamentary support. ..
At present, British Communists very often find it hard even to approach the masses, and even to get a hearing from them. If I come out as a Communist and call upon them to vote for Henderson and against Lloyd George, they will certainly give me a hearing. And I shall be able to explain in a popular manner, not only why the Soviets are better than a parliament and why the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill (disguised with the signboard of bourgeois “democracy”), but also that, with my vote, I want to support Henderson in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man—that the impending establishment of a government of the Hendersons will prove that I am right, will bring the masses over to my side, and will hasten the political death of the Hendersons and the Snowdens just as was the case with their kindred spirits in Russia and Germany.
If the objection is raised that these tactics are too “subtle” or too complex for the masses to understand, that these tactics will split and scatter our forces, will prevent us from concentrating them on Soviet revolution, etc., I will reply to the “Left” objectors: don’t ascribe your doctrinairism to the masses!”.
Lenin V.I.; “Left-Wing” Communism in Great Britain”; in “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder; April–May 1920; Collected Works, Volume 31, pp. 17–118; MIA
If this was true in the revolutionary air of 1917, it is even more true in today’s air of the USA. In Russia in 1917 the working and peasants had together – for several reasons and impelled by several forces – developed a revolutionary socialist consciousness. This is currently lacking in today’s USA where the myths about bourgeois democracy and the “great” history of the USA are so deeply buried.
Recalling the struggle to found the Bolshevik Party, Lenin pointed to the ability to build and maintain a class discipline founded on three various factors, of which the second was:
“Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people. “
“An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks’ Success”:”; in “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder; Ibid at MIA
Lenin criticised those such as Sylvia Pankhurst who argued for “no compromise”:
“The Left Communists believe that the transfer of power to the Labour Party is inevitable and admit that it now has the backing of most workers. From this they draw the strange conclusion which Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst formulates as follows:
“The Communist Party must not compromise. . . . The Communist Party must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of reformism inviolate, its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, by the direct road to the communist revolution.”
On the contrary, the fact that most British workers still follow the lead of the British Kerenskys or Scheidemanns and have not yet had experience of a government composed of these people—an experience which was necessary in Russia and Germany so as to secure the mass transition of the workers to communism—undoubtedly indicates that the British Communists should participate in parliamentary action, that they should, from within parliament, help the masses of the workers see the results of a Henderson and Snowden government in practice, and that they should help the Hendersons and Snowdens defeat the united forces of Lloyd George and Churchill. To act otherwise would mean hampering the cause of the revolution, since revolution is impossible without a change in the views of the majority of the working class, a change brought about by the political experience of the masses, never by propaganda alone. “To lead the way without compromises, without turning”—this slogan is obviously wrong if it comes from a patently impotent minority of the workers who know (or at all events should know) that given a Henderson and Snowden victory over Lloyd George and Churchill, the majority will soon become disappointed in their leaders and will begin to support communism (or at all events will adopt an attitude of neutrality, and, in the main, of sympathetic neutrality, towards the Communists). It is as though 10,000 soldiers were to hurl themselves into battle against an enemy force of 50,000, when it would be proper to “halt”, “take evasive action”, or even effect a “compromise” so as to gain time until the arrival of the 100,000 reinforcements that are on their way but cannot go into action immediately. That is intellectualist childishness, not the serious tactics of a revolutionary class.”
Lenin V.I.; “Left-Wing” Communism in Great Britain”; in “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder; April–May 1920; Collected Works, Volume 31, pp. 17–118 At MIA
Lenin described the objective as being to expose the left-wing pretensions of the Labour party, by putting them into power. From such a position they could not then turn around and claim that their supposed efforts were obstructed by “the ruling class”. The reality was that they were the ruling class themselves.
True, Lenin was primarily addressing this to the ultra-leftists in Britain, advising them in the year 1920 to support the Labour Party then led by the “Hendersons and Clynes”. However he was making it clear that his article was targeting wherever ‘ultra-leftists” proclaimed that bourgeois democracy was prematurely dead.
2. Two basic arguments for abstention
Arguments used by those left-wing parties and individuals that advise workers to abstain from the election, are based on two main claims. The first of these is
i) Democracy has been fully exposed, and that Lenin’s analysis is hence out of date.
In response to this, we do not believe that Lenin’s response to such claims has become outdated. He wrote:
“Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.”
Lenin, “Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?” in “Left Wing Communism” Ibid; at MIA
We cannot improve on this clear response. Even despite the differences between Lenin’s USSR and today’s USA – where for example there is no ‘kulak’ nor ‘lead of the Catholic clergy’ etc – the essence remains.
The illusions of the people in bourgeois democracy – by and large – holds sway. Despite an evident decline in voter participation in recent years.
The second main claim made by socialists advocating abstention is:
ii) There is no difference between the two wings of main capitalist class as represented by the Republican or the Democratic Party. While this has been a recurrent claim, it has taken especial resonance in the middle of a brutal war of annihilation being waged upon the Palestinian people and their neighbours.
This article aims to consider this latter claim in more detail below. Following that we summarise our view on whether a policy of electoral abstention is sensible for the working class movement.
3. Current mechanisms of democracy
“Bourgeois democracy” is by no means the rule of the will of the people as it is presented. It is no more than a false facade which conceals the real character of the state. That is essentially a machinery of force in the hands of the ruling capitalist class.
It was Fredrick Engels who pointed out that:
“The logical form of bourgeois domination is precisely the democratic republic”.
F.Engels: Letter to Edward Bernstein, March 24th., 1884, in: K.Marx & F. Engels: “Selected’ Correspondence”; London; 1934; p.435
The two dominant parties in the USA competing in the election both serve the interests of the capital class – whatever they say of themselves. The House of Representatives and the Senate – and the highest officers of the state as the President and Vice-President – holds power only on behalf of the dominant section(s) of the capitalist class. All promulgated government actions are at the final analysis subject to the interpretation and ruling of the Supreme Court. Any execution of legislation is handed to civil servants. Neither are the Supreme Court judges nor the civil servants subject to voting discipline (“Where We Stand! Manifesto Communist League”; December 1975
There are generally a minimum of two parties in each country that professes democracy. While specific historical particulars form special individual characteristics in any specific country, overall the essential process is very similar. Each party is targeted at differing levels of working class consciousness:
“… The standard parties, of which there are generally at least two in each country. All these standard parties are wings of the capitalist class. Historically they were tailored to disguise this reality and to appeal to differing fractions of working people. Standard conservative parties based their appeal to the petit bourgeois. In contrast, the standard ‘left’ parties adopted pseudo-socialist slogans in social-democratic parties. The latter aimed their appeal at the more advanced section of the population, the working class. That is the section that has seen through – to a certain extent – the contradictions of classes within capitalism. Such contradictions are sharpened by the crisis of profits threatening the ruling classes. As time has gone on, the increasing loss of credibility of the traditional parties is forcing a re-structuring. They are adopting new facades. This involves various accommodations with openly neo-fascist parties.”
Restructuring the Capitalist Parties of the European Community; MLRG.online; June 22, 2024.
With ever more “failed promises” to the working class, the standard pseudo left party becomes ever more exposed. In this instance the “Democratic Party”. It becomes seen ultimately by the working class as being merely a shell used by the ruling class to cover itself. As this process unfolds, alternative ‘left currents’ emerge.
Some of these potential alternatives are consciously facilitated by the ruling class to divert the advanced sections of the working class. That advanced section becomes more class-conscious, and its members cannot be ‘contained’ by the exposed ‘leftist’ party. Some such alternatives no doubt are fostered by the ruling class to continue hand-cuffing the working class. A recent example is the new grouping around Jeremy Corbyn of the British Parliamentary Labour Party.
Of those alternative parties – the majority – stop short of a socialist revolution. Even despite that consideration, some may truly be independent of the ruling class. But unless they adopt a socialist programme that unequivocally calls for revolutionary change, they will continue to serve objectively the interests of the ruling class. While there are small genuinely revolutionary parties, some standing for electoral positions – they are unlikely to sway the elections. To that extent, in this particular piece, we cannot deal with them.
A few words may be necessary on two “alternatives” to the main parties in the USA.
The “Democratic Socialists of America” (DSA) appear to believe the “Democratic Party” can be seized from inside. This is most unlikely. Perhaps a ‘Programme’ exists that might better explain their view of how change occurs. However, on their website the most prominent explanation for their view of change is simply this:
“Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society. We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism. Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history. We want a democracy that creates space for us all to flourish not just survive and answers the fundamental questions of our lives with the input of all. We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation. We want the multiracial working class united in solidarity instead of divided by fear. We want to win “radical” reforms like single-payer Medicare for All, defunding the police/refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a transition to a freer, more just life. We want a democracy powered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us we are powerless, but together we can take back control.” Democratic Socialists of America; “What is Democratic Socialism?”; No date; accessed 27 October 2024.
This is all commendable. However, in reality, the DSA website is largely devoted to the electoral struggle (DSA’s National Electoral Commission) and the right to vote. If they have a truly revolutionary struggle and perspective beyond that, it does seem rather well disguised.
In the USA today the other main alternative party to consider briefly is the “Green Party”. This also has a programme which – again while being laudable – has also not any apparent perspective of a socialist revolution. (Green Party ‘Ten Key Values’; accessed 26 October). In fact the ‘Ten Key Values’ carefully avoids the word “socialism” at key points, saying for example:
“2. Social Justice And Equal Opportunity.
As a matter of right, all persons must have the opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, any discrimination by race, class, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, religion, or physical or mental ability that denies fair treatment and equal justice under the law.” Ibid ‘Ten Key Values’.
It calls for “decentralization” without anything more than a “restructuring” – which is substituted for any sense of a “revolution”:
“5. Decentralization
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. We seek a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system controlled by and mostly benefiting the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all.” Ibid ‘Ten Key Values’.
It is true that some of these alternative parties, may become an ‘inductive current’ towards socialism. This precisely because they show limitations in their proposals for change. The most advanced sections of the working class develops, and will become aware of these limitations. They will either join an existing Marxist party or make attempts to form one.
However thus far we do not see a broad mass front of the people, nor a single united Marxist party that can call itself the leader of the USA working class.
For now, we must continue to build the Marxist-Leninist Party and broad united fronts that may also serve as ‘inductive currents’ – regardless of the election results.
Nonetheless – if we are to find a way of limiting the worst effects of the worst capitalists and their agents – we must consider if there are any differences between the two main parties – of any relevance to the working class? While the term has been much derided by some on the Left, is there indeed a “lesser evil”?
4. Whose interests are represented by the two main parties of the USA?
In the USA, the interests of the working class are not represented by either the “Democratic Party” or the “Republican Party.” They work together to maintain the facade of bourgeois democracy. To do this they direct their appeal to differing sections of the people. The “Republicans” target more the petit bourgeoisie and small business owners, but increasingly also the declining more politically backward sector of the working class in the “red states.” The “Democrats” as you point out, target more – the service sector workers in the health care, education, government. This extends to the workers in the leisure and entertainment industries. Their targets are more concentrated in the ‘blue’ states and big cities, which may be surrounded by a ‘red’ rural swath.
But what are the capitalist forces that the “Democratic Party” and the “Republican Party” represent? For in the system of bourgeois democracy which operates in the USA today, the forthcoming election involves a division of interests between the sections of the ruling class.
This can be readily seen in the following Figure 1 which shows which party gained the most donations from whom.
Figure 1: Party Donations in US dollars (thousands)
From Statista – accessed October 25. At minimum it can be seen:
i) The volume of declared funding is enomous overall
ii) That substantial donations are given by financial companies to both parties.
iii) That there appear to be more donations given to the “Democratic Party” by the high-technology companies including Alphabet Inc, Microsoft;
iv) That some notorious right-wing agencies such as the misleading named “Adelson Clinics for drug treatment and addiction” – are more directed to the “Republican Party”;
v) That more social-democratic trade unions direct their donations preferentially to the “Democratic Party”. That these trade unions are controlled by a labour aristocracy, we here will assert and not dwell further on at this point.
The general picture given here in Figure 1, is not challenged by other papers. For example those that describe individual “mega-donors”. Of which the majority of donations appear to go to Trump. (Maya Levine; “Meet the 10 biggest megadonors in the 2024 election cycle so far”; Morningstar; Jun 18, 2024)
Figure 1 was compiled before the largesse shown by the multi-billionaire Elon Musk to the “Republican Party” – who donated 1 million dollars to in effect bribe potential electors:
“Elon Musk has inserted himself into an American presidential election more than perhaps any other uber-wealthy person in modern history. There is no question that one of the world’s richest people is going to great lengths to speak and spend Donald Trump into the White House. But could Musk’s latest gambit venture into illegal territory — by paying people to, in effect, register to vote? That’s the contention of some legal experts, who say Musk’s newly announced daily $1 million prize to randomly selected registered swing-state voters who sign a petition for his America PAC appears to be a bribe.”
Aaron Blake; “ Elon Musk’s legally problematic $1 million voter giveaway“; Washington post; October 21, 2024
5. The changing landscape of USA capitalism
a) Late 20th century
In the recent past, a division in the capitalist class – between the so-called ‘cowboys’ and of ‘yankees’– became readily identifiable by the 1970s. During the presidency of Richard Milhous Nixon in 1972, the Watergate Conspiracy revealed this in an open and stark manner. W.B.Bland characterized this division where the ‘cowboys’ tended to be older established industrialists, energy or aerospace based and were represented by the “Republicans”. In distinction to those monopoly capitalists resting their claims on financial capital and new high technology – the ‘yankees’ – who were more represented by the “Democratic party.” Bland wrote that:
“The corruption in high places which has been revealed in the “Watergate Affair” is an inevitable concomitant of the profit motive on which the capitalist system is based. Usually this corruption is kept decently hidden from the people, and this process of containment is normally assisted by the media of the ruling class. Where… this corruption is pointedly made public, this is invariably because there is a serious conflict of interest within the ruling class, a conflict in which one group publicises the sins of its rival as part of the struggle to defeat them… The power of the campaign of exposure against Nixon which followed the so-called ‘Watergate Affair’ lies in the fact that it was undertaken by organs of US imperialism – by the ‘New York Times’, the ‘Washington Post’, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The explanation for this is not of course, that Nixon has suffered some mental aberration which has led him to espouse the cause of the working class! It lies in the fact that since 1963 the executive branch of the state has been controlled by a particular section of the US monopoly capitalists, a section most directly associated with the oil, armaments, and aerospace industries, a section which has used the power of the White House to the detriment of the majority of the US monopoly capitalists.”
Bland for the MLOB; “Watergate: The Unmaking of The President”; London; January 1974.
By 2019, such a division was still apparent. In 2019, we characterised Donald Trump as being the representative of the older ‘dirty energy’ sector (Big Oil and coal and anti-environmental and anti-regulation lobbyists) and of the older manufacturing industry. On their behalf, Trump had taken an economic policy based on two main planks:
– The ‘re-shoring’ – or moving the USA industrial previously out-sourced industries either back to the USA, or to more congenial neo-colonial countries – other than China.
– Trump also launched serious attacks upon any environmental regulations that hindered the profits of ‘dirty energy’ and ageing industrial plants.
Hari Kumar “What is Behind Trump – Is There Method Behind His Madness? Finance Capital and Industrial Capital – An Evolutionary History”August 18, 2019
We also in our earlier report noted that the financial capitalists were well supported by the policies of both the Republican party and the Democratic party. This does not seem to have changed.
However we believe that since 2019 there have been some evident changes in the economic underpinnings of the USA and the world. We note some of the major features – we acknowledge this is incomplete.
b) Current 21st century economic hallmarks marking specific changes
In brief, we note at least four visible geological-scale economic shifts that have taken place. These become relevant to assessing which groups of capitalists are represented by either the “Democratic Party” or the “Republican Party”.
i) Divisions between industrial and financial capital
As we described before the enormous profits to be made in the exploding financial markets had induced many of the industrial ‘old’ capitals to enter the financial markets. They did so becoming their own direct investors rather than relying upon a third party such as banks. To an extent even in 2019, there had already been a return to the fusion of financial and industrial capital. (Hari Kumar“What is Behind Trump – Is There Method Behind His Madness? Finance Capital and Industrial Capital – An Evolutionary History”: August 18, 2019
The tensions between finance and industrial capital have become lessened. This process has become even more manifest in the new giant technology industries that were originally centered on ‘Silicon Valley’.
ii) Modern high technology industries – computers, internet and Artificial Intelligence
The enormously increased power of new computing technology has begun to be more clearly felt with increasing automation. The next phase of development will be a thrust into Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems.
The potential power of this is illustrated by the scale to which the leading heights of capital (represented by the giants of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple and Meta) are betting on this. Their ranking in the terms of the wealth they control in the economy lies according to Wikipedia (Citing Fortune 500) as follows:
Amazon #2
Apple #3
Alphabet # 8
Microsoft #13
Wikipedia accessed 26 October, 2024
These companies have adequate capital reserve to heavily boost AI. Even by end 2023 the scale of projection of expenditure for growth on simply their own infra-structure – for example “cloud” development – was enormous (Figure 2):
Camilla Hodgson; “Tech giants pour billions into cloud capacity in AI push”: FT November 5, 2023; accessed on 26 October 2024.
The scale of capital spending is astounding:
“Big Tech companies have boosted their capital spending by 50 percent to more than $100bn this year, as they race to build the infrastructure supporting artificial intelligence, despite growing scepticism from Wall Street about the returns on the unprecedented investment. Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon and Meta all revealed massive increases in spending in the first six months of 2024 — totalling $106bn — in their latest quarterly earnings reports, as their leaders brushed off stock market jitters to pledge further investment hikes over the next 18 months. “At this point, I’d rather risk building capacity before it is needed, rather than too late,” Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg said this week, as he predicted the Facebook parent’s capital spending could hit $40bn this year. Their collective forecasts mean Big Tech’s AI-related investment could more than double by year-end. Analysts at Dell’Oro Group now expect as much as $1tn could be channelled into infrastructure such as data centres within five years, even though the companies have so far failed to convince investors that their customers are prepared to spend big on AI products and services.”
Stephen Morris, Hannah Murphy and Camilla Hodgson; “Big Tech groups say their $100bn AI spending spree is just beginning”; Financial Times (London); August 2 2024; Accessed 26 October, 2024.
Competition is fueled as other smaller companies (including some nationally funded programmes) – try to ensure they keep up:
“Meanwhile, start-ups like OpenAI, Anthropic, Elon Musk’s xAI and France’s Mistral are competing for scarce computing resources to train ever more advanced LLMs.”
Stephen Morris et al Ibid”; Financial Times (London); August 2 2024; Accessed 26 October, 2024
It is true that the monopoly power of the giant information and computing industries has been challenged by elements of the “Democratic Party” led by the Federal Trade Commissioner Lina Khan. It seems this has been quietly somewhat opposed by Harris. This itself has revealed a fissure within the Democratic party itself:
“Democratic candidates are wrapping their arms around Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan.
But one candidate is keeping Khan at arm’s length. Vice President Kamala Harris has declined to appear with Khan or campaign on her energetic antitrust agenda – much less defend the FTC chair against a chorus of Silicon Valley donors calling for her head, or Khan’s GOP critics on Capitol Hill.
Khan’s aggressive push to unwind monopolies and break up market concentration, particularly in the tech sector, has vaulted her to a prominence rarely enjoyed by an FTC chair or other agency heads. But it’s also splitting the Democratic Party on both substance and tactics in the final days of the presidential campaign….
Wealthy Harris supporters, including billionaire tech investor Mark Cuban and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, have waged a high-volume campaign against Khan in the hope that Harris will fire her – and in the process, signal that her administration will take a more business-friendly bent than President Joe Biden’s.
At the same time, a growing group of progressives see Khan’s fight against corporate power as a clear winning issue in a populist moment. ”
Brendan Bordelon, Adam Cancryn; Should Kamala Harris embrace Lina Khan? Democrats are split — and some worry it will cost her”; Politico 24 October 2024; accessed 26 October 2024
It is hardly the case that Khan represents a “revolutionary’ wing in the USA. After all – all she aims to do is to simply follow the letter of the law:
“Khan insists that she’s not inventing new powers for the FTC; instead, she’s “adhering to the rule of law.” In addition to the Sherman Act (1890), which cracks down on monopolies and anticompetitive interstate trade practices, and the Clayton Act (1914), which prohibits anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions, the FTC enforces the Federal Trade Commission Act (1914), which gives the agency broad authority to go after companies that engage in “unfair methods of competition.” …
Yet the FTC’s focus since the 1970s has been on “efficiency” and consumer welfare, neither of which is based in the laws governing the agency.”
Khan insists that she’s not inventing new powers for the FTC.”
Bryce Covert; “Lina Khan’s Anti-Monopoly Power”; The Nation; December 25 2023-January 1, 2024 accessed 26 October 2024.
Nonetheless – whether new or old laws – this determination of Lina Khan to ensure adherence to law, has effectively divided the high technology leadership.
This section of what was formerly almost exclusively a part of the ‘Yankee” interest and capital base, is now clearly divided into two parts.
One section as fronted by Peter Thiel and Elon Musk is pro-Trump;
while the majority remain pro-Harris.
iii) New energy sectors have eroded ‘King Coal’ but not fossil fuel-oil
Some major sources of energy shifts are noticeable.
Firstly a phase-out of coal energy is mainly complete in the USA, and parallels most world trends. Figures below show that the coal consumption in the USA has declined, as is the case world-wide including even in the People’s Republic of China.
Already in 2022, the International Energy Association had showed a decline in USA coal production.
Figure 3 : International Energy Association 29 July 2021; Accessed on 26 October, 2024
World coal consumption, 1978-2020
Coal consumption, and thus also coal production – has fallen correspondingly also significantly – in the USA. This shown in the following Figure 4.
Figure 4 :
From Statista; June 25, 2024 ; Accessed on 26 October, 2024
As a comprehensive report from J.P.Morgan in 2023 confirms, the US is now the lowest of the top 10 international coal users for energy generation. This is seen in (Figure 5):
Michael Cembalast, Chairman JP Morgan Market & Investment Strategy’; J.P.Morgan Eye on the Market – Electravision’ 14th Annual Energy Paper; March 2024; p.18;
Some claim that worldwide all-fossil fuel consumption will increase as world energy demands in total will increase (Javier Blas; “The Energy Transition Is Powered By — Wait for It — Coal”; Blomberg; 21 October 2024).
This reflects the increasing demand for energy and possibly, an apparent restriction of access to Russian oil. Nonetheless, the pattern appears to be that overall global fossil fuel share is falling, as global energy demand rises. As the J.P.Morgan Report shows in Figure 6.
(Figure 6):
Michael Cembalast, J.P.Morgan ‘Electravision’ 14th Annual Energy Paper; Ibid p.2;
In 2019 (Ibid above) we described the alliance between the oil industry, anti-environment regulators and the Trump “Republican Party”.
Therefore, when assessing today’s capitalist supporters of the two main parties, a key question is:
To what extent has the “Democratic Party” been perceived by the oil industry as hostile?
The answer to this question is fiercely contested. All agree that there was following the COVID pandemic and the ban on Russian oil imports – a downturn in oil production in the USA. But the interpretation of the subsequent “Democratic Party” oil policies differs by party stripe:
“U.S. domestic production is still recovering from the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused the price of oil to plummet in early 2020, followed by a reduction in capital expenditures in the industry. Experts say there’s no short-term fix for increasing production or bringing down gas prices, despite political arguments that suggest otherwise.
In announcing the ban on new imports of Russian oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal on March 8, President Joe Biden called on U.S. companies to produce more. The U.S. oil and gas industry has “9,000 permits” on federal land, he said, that “they could be drilling right now” to increase production and lower prices.
There were 9,173 approved and available permits for federal land by the end of 2021, but that’s not unusual, nor is it a quick process to start production on them.
The industry has said the Biden administration is “misusing the facts,” by ignoring the still-lengthy process to drill on those permits, and, along with some Republican lawmakers, has countered that the Biden administration’s policies have hurt production, pointing to a pause in new leasing of federal land and water (which was then blocked by the courts) and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline. … Republican Sen. Rob Portman charged that such actions are “leading to less North American energy production.”
Lori Robertson; “Both Sides Spin Domestic Oil Production”; Factcheck Posts; March 17, 2022; Accessed 25 October, 2024.
Likely just as Robertson in ‘Factcheck Posts’ (cited above) states above, the downturn from COVID has still not returned the oil industry to its own perceived ‘normalcy’. Robertson shows the Biden policies were associated with a boost to the USA oil production. Other supporting data also shows that under Biden drilling has been far from “stopped” is seen in a Forbes Report . Figure 7 shows a total oil rig count that is not very far behind those in the Trump years
(Figure 7):
Robert Rapier; “ What The Numbers Say About Presidents And Oil Drilling”; Forbes September 1, 2024. Accessed 28 October 2024.
Moreover the oil industry has its own reasons to restrict the supply of oil, namely to hold tight to supply to increase demand and also prices. These would tend to limit the number of rigs regardless of President, argues Louis Jacobson:
“oil rig counts have not quite caught up to the number in use prior to the pandemic. They are also well below the highs of 2014. There’s a reason for that, said Hugh Daigle, associate professor at the University of Texas’ Hildebrand Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering.
“Wall Street and other investors are looking for producers to be
more disciplined with their capital expenditures to give a better return on
investment,” Daigle said. “Unless investors see a long term case for high commodity prices and robust demand, this situation will probably not change in the near term.” As with much else involving the private-sector oil industry, Biden’s ability to change this situation is limited.
“Streamlining the permitting process and helping alleviate supply chain bottlenecks could help, but this would only make a small difference” in alleviating high gasoline prices, Daigle said. “Releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve similarly help the global market, but only by a little due to the relatively small volumes compared to global demand.”
Louis Jacobson; “Did Biden stop domestic oil drilling, as Herschel Walker said? Hardly “; Politifact; July 22, 2022; accessed 26 October 2024.
It is however correct that the “Democratic Party” has obstructed some potential developments, such as in the ‘Willow Project” in Alaska:
“In a sweeping win for climate and environmental advocates, the Biden
administration on Friday finalized a rule to ban fossil fuel drilling on nearly half of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, alongside other major conservation actions. The Interior Department will block oil drilling on over 13 million acres in the Western Arctic, including about 40% of the land of the NPR-A – a remote area that is home to protected animal species including polar bears and caribou. The reserve is more
than 23 million acres of public land and an underground emergency oil
supply for the US Navy that was designated in the early 1920s. More recently, it’s become the site of the ConocoPhillips-owned Willow project, a controversial oil drilling venture in the Arctic. When the Biden administration approved Willow in March 2023, it sparked intense backlash among young people on social media, as well as environmental and climate groups. Friday’s action could improve President Joe Biden’s approval among young voters.”
Ella Nilsen: “Biden administration bans drilling in nearly half of Alaska petroleum reserve in sweeping win for climate advocates”; CNN April 19, 2024; accessed 26 October, 2024.
Nonetheless, objectively the Biden Administration has been very protective of the oil industry, as Professor Valerie Thomas points out in the following graphic showing an overall rise in oil production (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Valerie Thomas; “ Under both Trump and Biden-Harris, US oil and gas production surged to record highs, despite very different energy goals”; The Conversation; September 9 2024; accessed October 26 2024
The “Democratic Party” under President Biden to a large extent – probably has overcome the main prior energy sector hostility. In terms of “real numbers” – the USA has become a net exporter of oil (see Figures 9 and Figure 10 below).
Michael Cembalast; J.P.Morgan Eye on the Market – Electravision’ 14th Annual Energy Paper; p.19; Full citation and weblink as above.
Figure 10:
Louis Jacobson; “Fact-checking Kamala Harris on energy production,
independence”; July 26, 2024; Politifact; accessed 28 October 2024
As Maxine Joselow opined in the ‘Washington Post’ in August 2024:
“As he campaigned for president in 2020, Joe Biden made a bold promise at a New Hampshire town hall, adding repetition for emphasis: “No more drilling on federal lands. Period. Period. Period. Period.”
Four years later, it appears that Biden may have overpromised.
The Biden administration has now outpaced the Trump administration in approving permits for drilling on public lands, and the United States is producing more oil than any country ever has. The unplanned fossil fuel boom reflects an uncomfortable truth for Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris: It is difficult for any president to stop the spigot of U.S. oil production, a leading driver of both the economy and
climate change…
Oil drilling continues to be a core issue in Donald Trump’s quest to retake the White House. Trump and his supporters argue that Biden and Harris have waged “a war on energy.” The former president has pledged to “drill, baby, drill” and to restore America’s “energy dominance.”
The reality is the United States is already dominant. The country is expected to produce 13.2 million barrels of oil per day on average this year — millions of barrels more than Saudi Arabia or Russia.”
Maxine Joselow; “Why no president has slowed the U.S. oil boom “; Washington Post; August 16, 2024;
The balance on the energy question can be summarised as follows:
– the ‘most dirty’ of energy industry – coal – is becoming less and less important in terms of profit generation.
– The same is true of dirty fossil fuel-oil, but less so. – Both these sources are also being superseded by the new rare-earth-battery type of energy storage systems (see below).
– Nonetheless, the smaller sectors of “old oil industry” are trying to pry their way into thus far limited ‘protected’ environments. They remain a vocal support of the “Republican Party”. They continue to loudly shout against any environmental regulations.
– Overall the power of the ‘dirtiest’ sections of this industry has waned. As noted this has been accentuated by the trend to rare-earth-based battery storage and its effects on the automobile industry.
iv) Automobiles, electric battery sector, and tariffs
Related to the development of computer technology and the change in energy supply is the shift of automobile industrial development into the battery-based rechargeable Electric Vehicles.
This has prompted the surge in tariffs in several world markets. While this move largely started in the USA, the European Community has readily joined this lobby. Undoubtedly it is aimed at China and its ability to translate low cost labour into a competitive alternative to the USA and European automobile industries. As part of the tariff package has come the restrictions on chip technology that are being urged by the USA. Again the target is mainly China.
China of course is hitting back. One advantage it has is a near-monopoly on key components, including dysprosium. A “rare earth.. it is highly heat resistant… (and) increasingly important for advanced semiconductors“:
“In a series of steps made in recent weeks, the Chinese government has made it considerably harder for foreign companies, particularly semiconductor manufacturers, to purchase the many rare earth metals and other minerals mined and refined mainly in China…. Beijing’s recent moves to take charge of the supply chain include other obscure chemical elements that are also needed by semiconductor manufacturers. On Sept. 15, China’s Ministry of Commerce restricted exports of antimony, a material used in semiconductors, military explosives and other weaponry. Last year, the ministry imposed export controls on two other chemical elements, gallium and germanium, also needed to make chips… The materials are a battleground in the broader fight between China and the United States over advanced technology, including the semiconductors used for artificial intelligence. Already, China produces almost all the world’s supply of these materials. The new restrictions solidify that market dominance… Rare earths from China are used in American-made F-35 stealth fighters as well as in wind turbines, electric car motors, camera lenses and the catalytic converters on gasoline-powered cars. Demand for them is expected to grow. The International Energy Agency predicted that clean energy industries like wind turbines and electric cars would need seven times as much rare earths in 2040 as what they needed in 2020.
One example of China’s growing power is dysprosium, a rare earth that sells for over $100 a pound. Previously used mainly as an additive in powerful magnets for electric cars, dysprosium is highly heat resistant. That makes it an increasingly important component of advanced semiconductors.
In the last few years, Nvidia and other computer chip manufacturers have changed the material used in hundreds of tiny electricity management devices, called capacitors, on each chip. The capacitors are now made from ultrapure dysprosium. China’s refineries produce 99.9 percent of the world’s dysprosium, mostly at a single refinery in Wuxi, near Shanghai. (Keith Brasher, “China Tightens Its Hold on Minerals Needed to Make Computer Chips”; New York Times 26 October, 2024)
6. Are there any major objective differences between the two main parties of the USA – the “Democratic Party” and the “Republican Party?”
This question can only be addressed by examining some specific questions.
Questions on which the two parties are largely or totally in agreement
The essential alignment of the two parties becomes obvious when the following
fundamentals are examined:
i) The valuable nature of capitalism and the imperative of capitalists to ensure maximal profits as the basis for the economic system of the USA;
ii) The latter then demands that the capitalist ruling class of the USA keep the working class in a subordinate position. This is achieved both by overt state might and power, and by the hegemony of education and the trade union aristocracy.
iii) The USA imperialists have seen a waning strength and economic power and its objective ‘influence’ is less than it was. Consequently, both parties propose strategies to maximise USA power and influence.
iv) Since this is intimately tied to the economic base and strength, both parties want to enhance USA industrial and financial strength. Hence both parties have taken a similar stand on the need for increasing of tariffs to isolate off the American market from its competitors. In the first instance, this targets China and Russia.
v) On foreign policy, there is an overall alignment. Both parties are intense supporters of USA imperialism. Naturally imperialism requires an army and this is not any source of division between the two parties. Of the two major wars currently taking place, in one being waged on Palestine and the Middle East, there is no different stance taken. Both parties have fostered and supported the Israeli war machine in the remaking of borders of Middle Eastern states.
But it is true that a difference seems to be apparent when considering the position of the Ukraine currently still fending off a Russian imperialist aggressive war. Trump has indicated some ‘greater understanding’ for Russia’s aggressive imperialist war, and has long expressed major reservations about NATO.
However in reality, Trump has already indicated that he would come to an accommodation with President Zelensky of Ukraine.
“Donald Trump met Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky at his New York base in Trump Tower on Friday and said it was time Russia’s war in Ukraine was settled.
The Republican presidential nominee has repeatedly criticised the Ukrainian leader on the US campaign trail, and a meeting between the pair had seemed unlikely until hours before.
As the two men stood side by side, Zelensky said he thought they had a “common view that the war has to be stopped and Putin can’t win”, adding that he would discuss with Trump details of his “victory plan”.
Despite years of differences, Trump insisted he had a very good relationship with Zelensky.”… The Ukrainian president later posted on his Telegram channel that the pair had a “very meaningful meeting”.
“We have a common view that the war in Ukraine must be stopped. Putin cannot win. Ukrainians must win,” he wrote.
Trump, meanwhile, said on his Truth Social account that if he is not elected president, “that war will never end, and will phase into WORLD WAR III”.
George Wright and Lucy Clarke-Billings; “ Trump meets Zelensky and says it’s time to end Russia’s war”; 27 September 2024
BBC News; accessed 26 October 2024
Hence there is no essential differences on these fundamental matters regarding foreign policy. Maybe, on some matters -perhaps only a question of nuance.
However, despite the above “light and harmony” on these questions between the two parties – this does not mean that there is no difference at all between the two parties on matters that make a difference to the ability of the working class to organise revolutionary change.
Questions on which the two parties are largely not aligned
We believe that there are however, some tangible, and objective differences
between the “Democratic Party” and the “Republican Party”. These are largely on domestic issues rather than foreign policy. These include the
following matters:
i) Likelihood of moves towards overt fascism.
It is important to note that there is no uniform capitalist consensus as yet – on whether it is now the apposite time to unleash a full fascist or a military state on the American stage.
To be clear Trump is not a fascist, despite some quotations that will follow (see below) from some of his peers. He comes close. Moreover, Trump is supported by some particularly reactionary sections of capital – exemplified by Elon Musk and similar-minded peers. Trump has reiterated threats against the so-called “enemy within”, which cite the use of extreme powers:
“the Republican nominee again refused to commit to accepting the
results of the 2024 election. That comes on the heels of remarks in
which he declared that he regards his political opponents as an
“enemy from within” and that he would consider deploying the
military against them merely for opposing his bid for the
presidency. The implication is that participation in the democratic
process is treason, and the threat is a fresh indication that if he is
elected to a second term, Mr. Trump intends to deploy government
power in new and dangerous ways.”
Editorial Board, “American Business Cannot Afford to Risk Another Trump Presidency”; October 19, 2024, New York Times.
Many of his former associates during Trump’s first Presidency have warned about his fascist inclinations. For examples we cite here only three key former associates, including John Kelley:
“A retired US Marine Corps general, Kelly served first as Trump’s secretary of homeland security in 2017, then was appointed White House chief of staff, a role he held from July 2017 to January 2019…
Kelly recently said his former boss fitted “into the general definition of fascist” who “certainly prefers the dictator approach to government”…
Mark Milley:
“A retired US army general, Milley served as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under Trump and Joe Biden…
Milley has called Trump a “fascist to the core” and was doing “great and irreparable harm”…
Mark Esper:
“The politician and marketing executive served as
defense secretary under Trump from July 2019 until November 2020, when Trump fired him with a tweet. During his tenure Esper repeatedly clashed with Trump, refusing to send “missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs” and to deploy troops across the country amid the 2020 racial justice protests. Esper publicly opposed Trump’s threat to levy the military against protesters using the 1807 Insurrection Act, telling journalists: “The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used … in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations.”
… Esper said Trump “has those inclinations” towards fascism: “I think it’s something we should be wary about.”
(Maya Yang ‘Fascist’, ‘conman’, ‘predator’, ‘cheat’: what 11
former Trump staffers say about him now”; Guardian, 25 Oct 2024; accessed 27 October 2024 ).
John Kelley has been recently waxed even more blunt:
“He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law. He discussed and confirmed previous reports that Mr. Trump had
made admiring statements about Hitler, had expressed contempt for disabled veterans and had characterized those who died on the battlefield for the United States as “losers” and “suckers” — comments first reported in 2020 by The Atlantic.”
Michael S. Schmidt ;“As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump
Would Rule Like a Dictator “; New York Times; October 22, 2024.
Of course the definitions that John Kelley has of fascism are not be the same as the ones Marxist-Leninists have.
In 1975 the Communist League (UK) defined fascism in the formulation that follows:
“the open terrorist dictatorship of a reactionary ruling class, exercised through a fascist political party having a mass base. . .Fascism seeks to build its mass base primarily among the petty bourgeoisie and lumpen-proletariat, but extended as far as possible into the working class proper and its organisations”.
Communist League: Theses on the Anti-Fascist United Front, in: “COMbat” 1975; p.30.
This definition differs from that of the 3rd Communist International ECCI. The latter presents fascism as the dictatorship of “certain elements” of finance capital, namely:
“the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital”. (Cited from Communist League 1975; Ibid)
However, from the ECCI definition, it would follow that there are “other elements” of finance capital – “less reactionary, less chauvinist and less imperialist” elements – whose interests are not represented by the fascist dictatorship and who form a social base objectively opposed to fascism. On this ground and related matters we disagree with that ECCI definition. More can be found on our disagreements with the revisionist led ECCI on fascism, at: Bland; “ The Question of the Distinction between “Parliamentary Democracy” and Fascism; in: Memorandum; Autumn 1976)
To further clarify, we argue that fascism arises when the majority – if not the entire ruling class – realises that it cannot rule by democratic norms itself. As Antonio Gramsci, who later became leader of the Communist Party of Italy, pointed out in October 1920:
“We are already seeing the decomposition of the Popular Party. . Day by day, with devastating speed, the Socialist Party disintegrates and collapses”.
“A.Gramsci: “The Communist Party” in: “The New’ Order”, October 9th., 1920, in: “Letters from Prison, Political ‘History and Conference Papers”, Part 2; Edinburgh; 1974; p. 113,114″; cited in Communist League; “The Nature of Fascism”; London CL 1976
From this Gramsci drew the conclusion that:
“Capitalism . . no longer has a political party whose ideology. .secures the continuance of a legal state on a broad base. . .
The political power of capitalism can realize itself today only in a military coup d’etat and the attempt to rivet an iron nationalist dictatorship”.
A.Gramsci: ibid.; p. 113; Cited CL London 1976
Currently, we have not reached that stage of majority concensus within the capitalist ruling class in the USA yet. The ruling class may be divided, but it can still as a whole – rule in the absence of a racist, corporate state. If it can do so, it will continue.
Again – We do not believe that Trump of now, is a fascist. But Trump’s electoral victory will certainly bring that stage closer.
ii) The role of constitutional rights to organise demonstrations.
This has been increasingly encroached upon. The case of McKesson v Doe – was refused hearing at the Supreme Court. That had revolved “around the democratic right to organise mass protests in three US states: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.” (Ian Ocx; “Supreme Court refuses to defend constitutional right to organize”; Red Phoenix April 18, 2024; at: APRIL 18, 2024
More such trampling on bourgeois democratic rights can be expected with either brand of capitalist. Though ‘bourgeois” – these rights are however obviously useful for the working class. Whosoever wins they are at risk. However it is quite fair to anticipate even more determined and concerted attempts to trample these rights, if Trump wins. Such trampling covers a large swath of society including immigrants:
“He has proposed large-scale deportations of immigrants, which would deprive businesses of needed workers and consumers.” Editorial Board, “American Business Cannot Afford to Risk Another Trump Presidency”; October 19, 2024, New York Times
iii) The role of minority votes.
The “Republican Party” has been at pains to limit electoral representation for minorities including African-Americans.
The moves against easy and accessible voter registration for minorities was, in the recent, era begun in 2013 at the Supreme Court. This apparently “disappointed” Obama – but whose political heirs did not fight tooth and nail to reverse the loss:
“A deeply divided Supreme Court threw out the most powerful part of the landmark Voting Rights Act.. a decision deplored by the White House but cheered by mostly Southern states now free from nearly 50 years of intense federal oversight of their elections.
Split along ideological and partisan lines, the justices voted 5-4 to strip the government of its most potent tool to stop voting bias — the requirement in the Voting Rights Act that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting, mainly in the South, get Washington’s approval before changing the way they hold elections.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority of conservative, Republican-appointed justices, said the law’s provision that determines which states are covered is unconstitutional because it relies on 40-year-old data and does not account for racial progress and other changes in U.S. society.
The decision effectively puts an end to the advance approval requirement that has been used to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half-century since it was first enacted in 1965, unless Congress can come up with a new formula that Roberts said meets “current conditions” in the United States. That seems unlikely to happen any time soon.
President Barack Obama, the nation’s first black chief executive, issued a statement saying he was “deeply disappointed” with the ruling and calling on Congress to update the law.”
Mark Sherman; “Supreme Court halts use of key part of voting law”; Associated Press; June 25, 2013; accessed 27 October 2024
Most recently:
“On August 20, the homes of several Democrats in Texas were raided by armed police in an attempt to prevent “voter fraud” in the words of the state’s Attorney General, Ken Paxton. These Democrats were also part of the Latino civil rights organization, The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which helps its members register to vote as one of its functions…
Governor Greg Abbot has already purged one million people from voter rolls. It remains to be seen what else will be deployed in the state to this unscrupulous end.
Though mostly concentrated in strategic states like Texas, the effort to suppress the right to vote extends across the entire country. In Ohio, HB458 was passed, issuing new restrictions on acceptable identification at the polls. Ohio also had a voter purge as well, to the tune of 155,000 people. In Georgia, the election board has made it easier to delay certification of election results. A slew of lawsuits have been submitted to federal courts seeking to restrict voting rights across the country. These are only the challenges that have happened this year. There are already dozens of laws and court jurisprudence on the books from previous decades.“
Anna I; “Voter suppression fuels disillusionment with undemocratic bourgeois elections”; Red Phoenix September 24, 2024.
It is true that very recently Republican and Trumpite attempts to suppress voting rights have hit legal walls:
“Several recent efforts by groups aligned with former President Donald J. Trump to challenge voting rules have been coming up short in federal and state courts.
Judges in a number of political battlegrounds and other states have rejected legal challenges this month to voter rolls and procedures by Republicans and their allies.
The Nebraska State Supreme Court ruled that election officials cannot bar people with felony convictions from voting after their sentences are served.
A Michigan state judge rejected a Republican attempt to prevent certain citizens living abroad, including military members, from being eligible to cast an absentee ballot in that swing state.
And a federal judge in Arizona rejected a last-minute push by a conservative group to run citizenship checks on tens of thousands of voters.
“They are hitting quite a losing streak,” said David Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, who advises both Democratic and Republican election officials…
On Friday, a federal judge in Virginia ordered the reinstatement of more than 1,500 people to the state’s voter registration rolls, a blow to Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, who had issued an order in August to conduct “daily updates” of the voter lists. As part of that review, the state had removed noncitizens from the voter rolls, a process that the governor said had been in place for many years.”
Michael Corkery, “Republican Legal Challenges to Voting Rules Hit a Rough Patch”; New York Times 25 October 2024.
However the courts have also handed some victories to the Republican efforts, and moreover, the recent Republican legal losses may have been only due to the so-called “Quiet period” of 90 days pre-election:
“Republicans say they are far from losing their broader battle, notching dozens of legal victories over the past year, including a win on Friday when a federal appeals court threw into question a Mississippi law requiring officials to count absentee ballots received by mail up to five days after Election Day.
In other cases, Republican groups have successfully sued over what they contended were efforts to bolster the process for scrutinizing potentially questionable mail ballots in Michigan. They were also successful in an attempt to disallow the use of digital student IDs as a valid form of voter identification in North Carolina.
Mr. Becker said what stands out about the Republicans’ most recent lawsuits is that they were filed within a few months of the election, when judges are wary of allowing states to alter voter rolls.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 establishes a so-called quiet period, 90 days before a federal election, when states are not allowed to systematically remove voters from the rolls.”
Michael Corkery, “Republican Legal Challenges to Voting Rules Hit a Rough Patch”; New York Times 25 October 2024.
Undoubtedly if Trump wins, even more determined removal of eligible voters for future elections, will take place. The logic of fascism is that votes are not needed. To not vote now under what is known as a “bourgeois democracy” – is effectively to play into the fascists arguments. For now we also will only note the on-going openly violently racist attacks on immigrants (whether from Haiti – as regards Trump and Vances lies on killing pets – or from Puerto Rica as in the inflammatory incitements at the Trump Madison Square rally). The “Democratic Party” is itself not following a socialist policy on immigration. But – the Trump response will be likely to be far worse and increase divisions in the working people.
iv) The role of trade unions.
It is true that the rights of independent trade union demands are largely curtailed by both parties. There are some more lenient approaches from the “Democratic Party”. The labour aristocracy of many unions have tended therefore to favour funding the “Democratic Party” (Figure 1). Indications are that the billionaire Elon Musk and Trump think alike on trade unions – they hate them and believe there is an urgent need to further repress them:
“Rightwing billionaire Elon Musk and his colleagues apparently believe they now have the Supreme Court votes necessary to overturn the 1935 Wagner Act that legalized labor unions. When Musk “interviewed” Trump on Xitter, the two joked about how impressed Trump was with Musk’s unwillingness to allow unions in any of his companies. “I love it,” Trump told his fellow oligarch. “You’re the greatest … I mean, I look at what you do. You just walk in and you just say, ‘You wanna quit?’ They go on strike, I won’t mention the name of the company, but they go on strike and you say, ‘That’s OK, you’re all gone … Every one of you is gone.’” Musk chuckled at that one, so Trump followed up by discussing putting Musk in charge of a government “efficiency” body that could lead the charge to bust the last of America’s unions among government workers: “You are the greatest! You would be very good [on the proposed commission]. Oh, you would love it.” Musk has filed a lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (which enforces unions’ right to exist) claiming the entire agency is unconstitutional; a Trumpy federal judge has already agreed, temporarily blocking the agency’s ability to enforce the law, as the case now heads toward the six corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court. Republicans and the billionaires who own them have been on a jeremiad against the ability of unions to exist ever since American workers first earned the right to organize in 1935. “
The Hartmann Report – ‘Saturday Report”: October 26, 2024; accessed 28 October 2024
v) The rights of women and the Roe v Wade decision.
Trump and the “Republican Party” are notorious and noxious in their attempts to reverse the standing of women and remove their civil rights. For example the Roe v. Wade decision, reversed by a Republican dominated Supreme Court of the SUA (SCOTUS):
“The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion after almost 50 years in a decision that will transform American life, reshape the nation’s politics and lead to all but total bans on the procedure in about half of the states.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, one of the most momentous from the court in decades.
Bans in at least eight states swiftly took effect after they enacted laws meant to be enforced immediately after Roe fell. “
Adam Liptak; “In 6-to-3 Ruling, Supreme Court Ends Nearly 50 Years of Abortion Rights”; June 24, 2022; New York Times.
This move has already increased infant deaths, because women carrying babies with congenital abnormalities cannot have abortions lawfully:
“Oct. 21, 2024 (HealthDay News) — The United States experienced a small but significant rise in infant deaths in the months following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturned Roe v. Wade, a new study shows.
The Dobbs ruling, handed down in July of 2022, led to outright bans on abortion in 14 states and tighter restrictions in eight others.
According to researchers, forcing women to carry “frail fetuses” to term — for example, fetuses with known congenital abnormalities — might lead to more deaths in infancy.
That appears to be the case.
Looking at U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data on infant deaths for the years 2018 through 2023, the researchers observed a 7% rise in infant deaths in the months following the Dobbs decision, compared to the years before.
There was an even higher 10% rise in deaths for infants who died from congenital abnormalities.
The study, published Oct. 21 in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, was co-authored by Maria Gallo and Parvati Singh, a professor and an assistant professor of epidemiology, respectively, at Ohio State University.” Ernie Mundell; “Health Day “; October 21, 2024. Accessed 27 October 2024.
More effects on the health and well being of women are to be expected under Trump’s victory. (D.Keegan, “On the recent Supreme Court rulings”; Red Phoenix July 2, 2023.)
vi) Taxation policies on upper income streams
While the “Democratic Party” will never expropriate the rich and the capitalist class, it has at least a more progressive tax policy than the “Republican Party”. The New York Times comments:
“Even by a traditional policy scorecard, Mr. Trump would do damage to American business. The candidate’s promises of tax cuts and regulatory leniency also must be weighed against other campaign proposals that are clearly not in the interests of American business. He has proposed large tariffs on imports, which would raise costs for companies that rely on foreign suppliers and could revive inflation. .. He has threatened to meddle in the Federal Reserve’s management of monetary policy. His
proposed tax cuts would add trillions to the federal debt, which could drive up borrowing costs for the government and the private
sector.”
Editorial Board, “American Business Cannot Afford to Risk Another Trump Presidency”; October 19, 2024, New York Times
It is already too lengthy, to further extend into the following issues where again the “Democratic Party” has approaches more likely to favour the working-class: A modicum of constitutional fetters on the Supreme Court; on Gay rights; and on the liberty of library materials; on separation of Church and state… etc.
Conclusions
There remains, then, the question of what a worker with socialist consciousness should do on polling day. Namely – what to do when the electoral choice will lie between the candidates of political parties all of whom objectively represent the interests of monopoly capital?
Despite its limitations, “bourgeois democracy” provides a greatly more favourable
terrain within which the working class can develop its struggle towards the unleashing of the socialist revolution that do the conditions of extreme repression that would exist under a potentially near-fascist government. It is therefore vitally necessary for the working class to defend by all means in its power the democratic rights associated with “bourgeois democracy” against attempts to abolish them. A Trump victory would erode those rights for certain.
The right to vote – limited though it is – is one of the democratic rights associated
with “bourgeois democracy”. To advise workers not to use this democratic right on November 5th 2024, is to imply that it is of no value. This plays into the hands of the ultra-right elements who seek to inculcate the view that especially for some minorities – these democratic rights are “worthless”. These viewpoints ideologically prepare the ground for when objective conditions demand the ‘fascist state’.
In the present circumstances, advice to workers not to vote is harmful and reactionary. It is not accidental that this advice is usually given by enemies of the working class including anarchists. We advise protection of the democratic right to vote, and to use that vote in a way to help create the best conditions for the advance of the working class towards socialism.
Since in the current circumstances the next government of the USA will be either a “Democratic Party” led or a “Republican Party” one – it is necessary to analyze whether the situation of the working class would be more advanced by the election of the “Democratic Party” or the “Republican Party”.
The “Democratic Party” wishes to delay the imposition of fascist-type measures. The postponement of such plans for as long as possible becomes thus a temporary and limited victory for the working class. Any such delay gives a further period of time to enable the construction of a Marxist-Leninist party for victory. During that period there may well arise new parties or movements that can serve as an inductive current for workers moving towards a socialist consciousness. At best, these movements would be a “Red Front”.
Despite its uselessness in changing the social order, under “bourgeois democracy”, workers possess certain valuable rights and liberties. These are abolished under fascism, or states with a near fascist type of government. These rights and liberties facilitate the building of a movement towards the socialist revolution.
Socialists – and indeed the entire working class – have a vital interest in resisting fascism. Some organisations and individuals who would limit an anti-fascist movement to only socialists, narrow and weaken the anti-fascist struggle. That makes the victory of fascism virtually inevitable. But the socialist movement and the anti-fascist movement are movements representing different levels of political consciousness. To resist fascism it is necessary to build the broadest front possible.
MLRG.online, October 27, 2024