From PCUSA – Red Patriot
The most powerful wing of our ruling class—that being the one represented by finance capital, as opposed to industrial capital—is seeking to carry out a fascist takeover. One designed to not be noticeable to the average person on the left, as they’re only exposed to media which talks about the threat which industrial capital represents. The way we can prevent this takeover, or at least maximize the strength of our popular forces should the takeover happen, is by uniting all the anti-NATO forces which are compatible with each other.
The either exclusive or primary focus on the Trumpian side that we’re seeing from the left is a diversion from this threat which finance capital poses. And the national security state is absolutely going to exploit fears of the Trumpians to advance its schemes for destroying the anti-imperialist movement, under the guise of “fighting fascism.” The goal of capital’s dominant wing is to make the present feud within the ruling class end in ultimate victory for the side of finance capital, where censorship, raids, indictments, and hidden state or vigilante violence have successfully crushed all organized opposition to NATO.
The mistake the left is making isn’t to believe that the Trumpian wing is dangerous, as it definitely is to a certain degree; the left’s mistake is to believe that the Trumpian wing is the most significant threat. In the modern USA, the most influential elements of capital support the pro-NATO side of our ruling class, exemplified by the Democratic Party along with its allies in the GOP’s old neocon wing. That means even though the Trumpian side has an extremely reactionary social agenda; and is increasingly a threat towards the rights of trans folks and others; it can only truly dominate on the state and local levels. It’s not the side of our ruling class that holds unimpeachable control over the most important functionings of the highest levels of government. And unless the USA as we know it collapses, it’s not going to attain that ultimate control in 2024 or in the future.
The fascism we’ll see in the coming years is going to primarily be of the same character as the type of fascism which presently holds the most power; that being liberal fascism. The fascism where the Democrats, the intelligence agencies, the legacy media, and big tech work to suppress and smear all who challenge their ardently pro-NATO agenda.
The liberal fascists represent the type of warmongering that’s the most extreme, the most brazen, and the most urgently threatening towards peace and civil liberties. Whereas politicians like Trump are continuing the longstanding American political practice of promising to end the wars during presidential campaigns (however false this promise consistently turns out to be), today’s Democrats aren’t leaving any doubts that they aim to keep nurturing the war machine. They’re unambiguously pro-NATO during a time when opposing NATO has become the main antiwar litmus test, not even trying to pretend that they represent a break from the paradigm of endless war. Only fifteen years ago, candidate Obama was representing himself in that way, but since then the Democrats have openly taken on the role as the ultimate purveyors of global destruction.
American capital’s most powerful institutions got alarmed when Trump was elected, because they were concerned that he would bring about the kind of Bonapartism where the predominant elites become genuinely threatened; where a demagogic leader from the less powerful wing of the ruling class fully takes control of the state, and successfully purges the old elements of the political establishment. When these primary elites exercised their influence in reaction to Trump, though, it became apparent that in modern America the traditional power players are easily able to defend against Bonapartism.
Whatever genuine antiwar leanings Trump may have held were for the most part rendered irrelevant to his actual policies; as the pressures the old elites applied to him incentivized his administration to become in some areas even more pro-war than his predecessor had been. He may have pursued a deal with socialist Korea, which upset the neocons, but he also carried out a more recklessly anti-Russian foreign policy than Obama had. Thereby, the predominant elites kept their status, ensuring that the executive wing will keep implementing their new cold war maneuvers regardless of which party is in the White House.
All they had to do was manufacture a story about the new president having colluded with Russia to win the election, and all doubts about this president’s loyalty towards the anti-Russian agenda could be eliminated. At least all reasonable doubts, as the new cold warriors have continued to portray Trump as “Putin’s puppet” regardless of how thoroughly he’s proven this idea to be absurd.
This persistence of the Russiagate psyop, and of its paranoid McCarthyist suspicions, is happening because the old elites feel increasingly unsure about the future of the liberal order. They may have shown themselves to be able to hold control over all the branches of government, but with the growing backlash towards Biden’s Ukraine proxy war, the people themselves are coming to represent the main threat to NATO. Finance capital can neutralize Bonapartists when it comes to challenging NATO, as Bonapartists are inherently capitalist in nature and therefore can easily compromise out of opportunism. To neutralize the people, though, finance capital needs to orchestrate a psyop more powerful than Russiagate.
This newer psyop against the anti-imperialist movement is one where everyone who supports Russia in the conflict gets characterized as a far-righter; the liberals seek to make all the elements of the communist movement that are serious about anti-imperialism look like we’re synonymous with the reactionary Bonapartists, invalidating everything we say and do in the eyes of those who’ve been fooled by the narrative.
This is indeed a powerful psyop, but like Russiagate or the pro-Ukraine narratives, in the long term it’s still only capable of being accepted by the liberal minority. Most Americans have ultimately come to be against funding for Ukraine; which indicates that if the majority of the public were to become aware of the anti-imperialist organizations the state seeks to suppress, most people would come to support these orgs. That would be true even if the media’s portrayals of these orgs were overwhelmingly negative; most Americans are suspicious of the media to some degree, and there are powerful narrative counter-forces to the liberal outlets. If the media were to try to convince the people that the DOJ’s “Russian collusion” charges against the African People’s Socialist Party (also called Uhuru) are true, most people wouldn’t simply accept these lies; there would be a national debate, like there’s been about Russiagate or Ukraine.
It’s because of this that the media is refusing even to touch the Uhuru story; as the case continues, with it now being in its oral argument phase, the press is demonstrating a phobia of covering it. And this silence is fascinating; an aggressive media propaganda campaign shows that big developments are underway, but what about when the developments are so big that the media is too scared to attempt to make any propaganda about them? This is an exceptionally unstable situation for our ruling elites; they know they have to choose their next maneuvers carefully if they want to be able to carry out this purge of anti-imperialists, and thereby ensure the survival of their socioeconomic order.
The decisive factor is whether Uhuru’s persecution—and the other stories from the new cold war that the elites don’t want to be widely seen—get sufficiently propagated in time for when the state plans to carry out its next repressive maneuvers. If these stories remain obscure enough, our national security apparatus will be able to quietly repress or assassinate its targets within the anti-NATO movement, while the narrative managers portray the purge’s victims as agents of right-wing extremism. If these stories don’t remain obscure, though, the state will lose a crucial part of its control.
One of these stories, namely the story about NATO backing Nazis in Ukraine, recently got exposed when Canada honored an SS fighter. Which is causing Canada, and the other forces within the NATO power structure, to prepare to employ more drastic measures for in case they lose the narrative war. This is apparent from how Canadian officials have been increasing their censorship policies; and even earlier than the Nazi incident, these officials had begun announcing plans to coordinate with the other centers of the liberal order towards ensuring NATO’s continued primacy across the west.
Their big fear is that the U.S. will withdraw from NATO if the Republicans win in 2024; which (likely) isn’t happening given Trump’s history of compromising with the intelligence centers, but would certainly happen if a revolution happened here. In the short term, these emergency plans for finance capital can act to strengthen the tools the old elites use to ensure that a pro-NATO policy model continues; in the long term, they’re about trying to prepare for a scenario where the bourgeoisie have lost the class war within U.S. borders, and imperialism’s survival is thereby endangered.
The equivalent to Canada’s liberal fascist coup is happening in the USA; except here, the solidly pro-NATO forces are needing to fight an intensifying rivalry within the ruling class, as well as try to neutralize a population which the government increasingly sees as a threat. The only way this purge can succeed is if we fail to adequately warn the people about it; we must make those in the anti-Ukraine majority aware that their government is trying to take away their freedom to assemble against the war machine, and their right to speak out against all narratives the corporate media puts forth. If we get this predominant section of the people outraged about these evils, the “all anti-imperialists are fascists” psyop will be made ineffectual, as most people will be actively rejecting it.
