[News] U.S. Militarism and the One-Sided Class War

[Anti-Imperialist News]

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/05/u-s-militarism-and-the-one-sided-class-war/ 



  U.S. Militarism and the One-Sided Class War

by Ajamu Baraka <https://www.counterpunch.org/author/cuxere/> - July 5, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite capitalism’s internal contradictions, it can sustain itself in 
various forms – even fascism is a capitalist construct – as long as the 
bourgeois class is a “class for itself” and the working class is 
subjectively reduced to non-existence as a political force because of 
its lack of class consciousness. The various methods with which the 
rulers are able to leverage ideological consent from the oppressed don’t 
necessarily require extensive study of Gramsci, although it would help. 
Rather, it is only necessary to remind ourselves of the very simple but 
accurate observation provided by Marx that the dominant ideas of any 
society reflect the ideas of its dominant class.

While the modalities of how an increasingly small ruling element can 
sustain its rule in the midst of an ongoing capitalist crisis are an 
interesting and, indeed, critical subject, it is not the subject of this 
short essay. I will instead just focus on one issue unfolding in the 
public domain that I believe serves as an example of how this 
ideological feat is pulled off – the debate, or more actually, 
non-debate on militarism and the military budget.

Last week, as the public was being prepped for the first Democrat party 
debates in that ESPN style of reporting that now dominates at CNN and 
other cable stations which frame such political events as the debates as 
entertainment spectacles, the Senate passed (with the support of 36 
Democrats), the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by a vote 
of 86 to 8 that gave the Trump administration $750 billion for the war 
machine – an increase that makes this military budget the largest in 
U.S. history. Only five Democrats voted against the bill; six others 
including Senator Sanders and Warren failed to vote because they were on 
the campaign trail running for President.

The $750 billion that the Senate approved will only have to be 
reconciled with the $733 billion military budget that the House had 
already indicated it will support. The $733 billion figure would also 
represent an historic increase in military spending and will be the 
third increase since Trump took office.

The military budget Trump inherited already eclipsed the military 
spending of China, Russia, France, India, the United Kingdom, and Japan 
combined. The $619 billion in 2016 under Obama grew to $700 billion in 
2018 under Trump, then to an even more bloated $716 billion in 2019 and 
the $750 billion passed by the Senate on June 26. It would be tempting 
to suggest that it was only “Russiagate” that explains how someone who 
the Democrats claim to fundamentally oppose could, nevertheless, win 
bipartisan support for his request for increases in military spending 
that he even characterized as “crazy.”

As unstable as Trump is alleged to be, Democrats rejected calls from 
many quarters to oppose the administration’s inclusion in the NDAA to 
develop “usable” nuclear weapons as part of the drive to incorporate 
their tactical use. So-called usable nuclear weapons, lower-yield 
devices that can theoretically be used like conventional bombs, are now 
being advanced as a necessary part of the mainline “defense” strategy. 
Among the many problems with this position, the biggest is that this 
strategy has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with 
enhancing the capacity for a “nuclear first strike.” Interestingly, not 
only was opposition from Democrats MIA, but the lopsided vote indicates 
that they have fully embraced this insane policy that was first proposed 
under Barack Obama.

Senate Democrats even allowed Trump to get away with misappropriating 
billions of dollars granted by Congress to the Pentagon and divert the 
cash to construct the border wall by reimbursing the Pentagon for the 
use of those funds without any penalties. An offense, by the way, that 
could arguably be impeachable.

Why the bipartisanship on the military budget? The easy answer is that 
both parties share the strategic commitment to maintain U.S. global 
hegemony against all rivals, but especially against China and Russia, 
represented in the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) document.

The NSS under Trump does not depart from the goals of previous 
administrations during the post-Cold War period. However, it does 
represent a more intense commitment to the use of coercive force to 
offset the gains being made by their capitalist rivals, mainly China and 
Russia. Though not directly referenced in the NSS, the Trump forces are 
now concerned with competition from the European Union, as it is being 
seen as an instrument and expression of the interests of German capital 
and the growing calls in Europe for an independent military force.

But all of this still begs the question: if the Republicans are supposed 
to be the party of war and the Democrats the sophisticated global 
cosmopolitans committed to peace, multilateralism and international law, 
why wouldn’t the Democrat party’s popular base react more vigorously to 
oppose the obscene squandering of public resources for the military?

There are two elements to this as an explanation. One I alluded to 
already, the diversionary impact of Russiagate, with the other element 
being the dramatic shift to the right in the consciousness of the 
Democrat party base as a result of the ideological influence of the 
Obama administration and Obama himself.

It continues to be a mistake by left and progressive forces to 
underestimate the ideological impact of Obama’s administration.

Unlike during the George W. Bush presidency when progressive and radical 
forces were in open opposition to the state, Obama lulled progressive 
forces to sleep and disarmed radicals, especially white radicals, who 
were reluctant to oppose his reactionary policies.

Obama’s ideological influence wasn’t just that he legitimized 
neoliberalism and the class and race interests it represented, but that 
he obscured those interests and the anti-people character of 
neoliberalism. Obama gave a respectability to policies that in an 
earlier era would have been seen as odious. From the support for coups 
in Honduras, Egypt, Ukraine and Brazil to the extra-judicial murder of 
U.S. citizens, including Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (the 16 year-old son of 
Anwar al-Awlaki), the U.S. citizen murdered two weeks earlier, Obama was 
able to avoid the condemnation of his policies.

The dismaying result of Obama being in office is that it completely 
broke down the natural skepticism that is necessary in a state and 
society that is ruled by a minority elite. For many of Obama’s 
supporters, if he declared individuals or an entire nation terrorists, 
they blindly accepted it without demanding any evidence whatsoever.

Nevertheless, the ideological impact of the Obama years would have been 
mitigated if his policies had been given a full and critical assessment 
by the media. However, the private corporate media establishment has not 
only been incorporated as part of the state’s ideological apparatus, it 
has also been integrated into the partisan struggles among the ruling elite.

This collusion between the transnational rulers and the media continues 
in favor of the Democrats. Not able to successfully execute a 
constitutional coup, the capitalist establishment decided to use 
Russiagate to press for alterations in Trump’s nationalist program and 
to divert public attention away from the ongoing governmental decisions 
that were being delivered by the duopoly in their favor.

This is the context that informs what surfaces publicly or is allowed to 
be debated by mainstream politicians, even the new “radicals” in the 
Democrat party. For the centrists and the progressives, the issue of 
military spending and the ongoing wars represent issues that have not 
yet been designated as “debatable.”

War and militarism are class issues. It is the poor and working classes 
that have always fought the wars. The 60% of the federal discretionary 
budget that is now devoted to war and militarism means that all of the 
human rights of the people from housing to health care must be addressed 
in the 40% of the budget that remains.

This is class war. Not only the stealing of the surpluses from the 
people’s labor but the misappropriation of state spending for the 
special corporate interests that control electoral politics and the state.

We can reverse this. But we must present clear demands in order that 
these issues are addressed in the public square.

We must, for example, demand that all those running for office support 
efforts to initially cut the military budget by 50 percent and 
reallocate government spending to fully fund social programs and realize 
individual and collective human rights in areas of housing, education, 
healthcare, green jobs and public transportation. That they Oppose the 
Department of Defense 1033 program that transfers millions of dollars’ 
worth of military equipment to local police forces. That they advocate 
for the closing of the 800-plus U.S. foreign military bases and the 
ending of U.S. participation in the white supremacist NATO military 
structure. That they call for and work toward closing the U.S. African 
Command (AFRICOM) and withdrawal of all U.S. military personnel from Africa.

And finally, with the insanity of the drive toward nuclear war, they 
must sponsor legislation and/or resolutions at every level of government 
calling on the U.S. to support the United Nations resolution on the 
complete global abolishment of nuclear weapons passed by 122 nations in 
July 2017.

The class war that we are losing in the U.S. has consequences not only 
for the working class in the U.S. but the oppressed nations and peoples 
across the planet. This is a responsibility that we can no longer fail 
to live up to.

/*Ajamu Baraka* is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for 
Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party 
ticket. He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda 
Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch magazine. /

-- 
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 
863.9977 https://freedomarchives.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20190705/3438473b/attachment.htm>