Saturday, 1 November 2008

Obama and Political Change

The message of the Obama political campaign has been "Change". Change is a very powerful message, but in reality a message that is totally meaningless. Why is "Change" a powerful message? Because, people not only get dissatisfied with what they have, but simply get bored with what they have. Think about the proverb, "A change is as good as a rest." The advertising industry, and the consumer society is wholly conditional on Change. People throw away perfectly good clothes, and other consumer items, for no other reason than they want to change them, they are led to believe that they are no longer fashionable, and nobody tends to want to be the odd one out. A large part of the reason for the production of new car models is not because of some improvement, but simply that by bringing out a new model, consumers can be cajoled into parting with their money. The whole of bourgeois democracy is based upon the same precept.

We have the accepted wisdom that Governments will always lose popularity mid-term. Why? Why should a Government that is doing a good job lose support part way through its term? And if you are going to change something, shouldn't you change it for something better? Yet, the fact is that for the last 100 years of bourgeois democracy workers have changed their Governments in elections not for something better, just simply for something different. They have abided by the proverb "A Change is as good as a rest." Its not that there has been a shortage of alternatives. Socialist parties have existed for all that time, but except for a short period they have failed to win over workers to a vision of a society that is different to the one we have.

To some extent, the same reasons, that cajole consumers into casting off perfectly good clothes in favour of spending money on different ones, can explain the reason for that. Bourgeois society has a huge advertising machine geared to convincing everyone that Capitalism is not only the best of all possible worlds, but, effectively, the only possible world. But, that can't be more than a minor explanation. No amount of advertising ultimately can convince consumers to buy something that is crap, or at least not to keep buying it. The reason workers continue to simply swap one brand of bourgeois politician for another, and to reject the real alternatives is because every aspect of their lives tells them that Capitalism IS the only possible world. Until they see some functioning alternative that works they will not be convinced in their vast majority, and without winning over the vast majority Socialism is not possible. A few might risk the idea of a new product, just as their are early uptakers of new products, but the majority will not be convinced until they see the proof for themselves. If those early uptakers build Co-operatives that work others might follow, but if the early uptakers are like the Leninists who simply want to impose their vision on the workers, who believe that in creating a new society from the top down the workers will automatically see the benefit of this new society, the reaction is likely at best to be suspicion, at worst hostility. Ideas do not change that quickly, and in the meantime those that believe they are the holders of "Truth" will simply turn themselves into a new set of political rulers. Workers are not daft. They have seen this happen before. So, in the meantime, they settle for simply chucking out one load of bums, and replacing them with another.

And so it will be in the US elections on Tuesday. For all the broo ha ha over this election being a historical moment in US history it is nothing of the kind. Barack Obama is a Centre-Right bourgeois politician. There are essentially no differences between him and John McCain in respect of politics. he would fit in perfectly well in the British Conservative Party. The fact, that he is Black does not change the nature of this election, anymore than the fact that Maggie Thatcher was a woman changed the nature of the 1979 General Election in Britain. In fact less so. In 1979 the choice was between an openly pro-business Conservative Party led by a group that accepted all of the extreme Right-Wing ideas of Frederick Hayek - at least whilst it suited them - and a Labour Party, which, whilst still riddled with bourgeois ideas, was at least tied to a still militant Labour Movement.

The experience of Thatcher demonstrates the point. Thatcher did not advance the cause of women - certainly not the vast majority of women who belong to the working class - if anything she set that cause back. Obama will not advance the cause of Black Americans, indeed in pursuing - as he undoubtedly will - bourgeois politics that cannot provide answers to the American workers - Black or White or any other colour - he will sow disillusion within those most oppressed sections of the US working class. The experience will give the opportunity to all of the multifarious racist and Right-Wing groups in the US to blame not Obama's bourgeois politics for what transpires, but simply his blackness.

In my opinion socialists have to be active members of the Democrats in the US for the same reason that they have to be active members of the Labour Party in Britain, or whatever party attracts the support and votes of the majority of workers anywhere. Not because to do so is to support the lesser evil, but for the reason that Marx and Engels outlined - the reason they gave for joining the openly bourgeois Democrats in Germany - because the job of Marxists is to be with the workers, to go through the experience of life and politics with them, to explain, to help organise, to educate those workers, and thereby raise their consciousness. The main reason for Marxists to be in the Democrats at the moment is not to mislead workers into believing that a vote for Obama is a step forward or even a lesser evil - though given the politics of Sarah Palin I think socialists have to do everything possible to prevent any ticket on which she appears from being elected - but is to go through that process with them at a time of heightened political activity and discussion, to demonstrate to them what is wrong and inadequate with the Democrats and bourgeois politics in general, to offer them in daily activity and discussion a real alternative, to do that in the Democrat organisations, and in the Trade Unions and other Labour organisations. It is far easier to do that from the inside, far more likely to get a hearing than simply standing on the outside pissing into the tent and thereby arousing the ire of the workers inside. But, as I said above if Marxists are to do that effectively they have to demonstrate to workers in practice an alternative. This fight cannot be won on the basis of the bosses terrain, of simply trying to win workers over to the idea of electing some "real" socialist Workers Government. At least not at this stage. They have seen that top down approach before, and were betrayed at best. It is necessary to utilise that work with the workers to convince them of the need to build that alternative here and now through their own self-activity. In place of the Capitalist Banks and Finance houses that have created the current crisis, to build through their Labour Movement and other working class organisations, Co-operative banks and insurance companies such as exists in the Co-op Bank in Britain or in the Trade Union bank Unity Trust, owned and controlled democratically by the workers, neighbourhood Credit Unions in place of the vicious loan sharks and so on. In place of the almost feudal Landlords, or the mortgage companies, that will sell your house from under you for not paying the mortgage they should never have sold you, its necessary to get back to that age old US custom of "Barn Raising", whereby neighbours would all work co-operatively to build a barn, but now in a modern setting by establishing co-operative building and construction companies, working with Co-operative financing, and Co-operative housing and community management organisations to build decent, affordable housing not for profit, but for the benefit of the people living in it.

These and many more such schemes and ideas are not Utopian, they have been accomplished by workers in the past, and could easily be accomplished today. In the US as in Britain, workers in their pension schemes have huge sums of Capital that could be mobilised to meet the workers needs, if the workers themselves had control of them. But they do not. Control rests with those same financiers that caused the current financial crisis, the workers savings go instead to provide cheap finance for those companies, and to keep the bosses of those companies in huge salaries and bonuses. A fundamental principle of bourgeois ideology is that the individual should have control over their own property. So why does bourgeois society deny workers control over their own pension funds? The transformation of society that could be brought about by such control would be startling. It would begin to create the kind of alternative society that workers need to see in order for them to believe in the idea that the whole of society could be organised this way. Then they might even be prepared to vote for the kind of Workers Government that would carry through the kind of measures necessary to prevent the bosses from undermining it.

Now that would be a "Change We Can Believe In"


johnsmith said...

Obama campaign claims to be about political change. That is until they are presented with the stigma of having to explain away Obama being a Muslim again. Two Muslim woman, Hebba Aref, 25, and her friend, Shimaa Abdelfadeel, were denied visible seats behind Barack Obama’s stage at Joe Louis Arena on Monday because they wore head scarves. So much for that Obama message of unity. Just another example of talk is cheap and one’s actions speak louder than words.


Internet Marketing

Boffy said...

Why do you say that it is a "stigma" for Obama to have to explain away being a Muslim? What do you mean by that? Firstly, Why should anyone have to "explain away" being a Mulsim more than explaining away being a Christian, a Jew, a Zoroastran? As A Marxist I have no truck with relgion of any kind, but I am certainly not going to demand that anyone, including a politician "explain away" their religion. I might, as in the case of Sarah Palin, point out that if the nature of those beliefs means that their political consequences are disastrous, then that should be taken into consideration. As a Marxist I will challenge the fundamental ideas and principles of religion, and that inevitably means challenging those that hold those beliefs, but that seems to me completely different from singling out Obama and demanding ana snwer to the question "why are you a Muslim", as opposed to saying to George Bush, or Tony Blair, "Why are you a Christian?"

I have made that point first, before making the more obvious point that in any case Obama is not a Mulsim he's a Christian, for the simple reason that I wanted to emphasise the point that it does not matter whether he is a Muslim or a Christian.

As far as the two women wearing head scarves, I don't want to defend Obama in this, but I would say that perhaps not too much should be made about it. The whole of modern bouregois politics is about presentation not content. Vast amounts of money and time are spent deciding on the best tie or dress for a candidate to wear let alone framing set pieces. There are lots of other people probably who would have been prevented from being in that frame if it upset the message, and given the attacks that McCain's Campaign and the Right have launched against Obama in respect of him being associated with terrorists etc. its understandable that they weren't going to give hostages to fortune.

That is a consequence of the nature of bouregois politics of it being all about winning votes, not changing ideas. Obama is a bouregois politician, and so you can't attack him for acting in any way different from the way any other bourgois politician would act.

A socialist would act differently. A socialist would have drawn attenton to the fact of that support, and used the occasion to attack racist ideas whether or not it meant losing votes.