<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="container content-width3" style="--font-size:20px;">
<div class="header reader-header reader-show-element" dir="ltr"> <font
size="-2"><a class="domain reader-domain"
href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/05/u-s-militarism-and-the-one-sided-class-war/">https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/05/u-s-militarism-and-the-one-sided-class-war/</a></font>
<h1 class="reader-title">U.S. Militarism and the One-Sided Class
War</h1>
<span class="post_author_intro">by</span> <span
class="post_author" itemprop="author"><a
href="https://www.counterpunch.org/author/cuxere/"
rel="nofollow">Ajamu Baraka</a> - July 5, 2019</span></div>
<hr>
<div class="content">
<div class="moz-reader-content line-height4 reader-show-element"
dir="ltr">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page">
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>It continues to be a mistake by left and progressive
forces to underestimate the ideological impact of
Obama’s administration.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>We can reverse this. But we must present clear demands
in order that these issues are addressed in the public
square.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
<p> <em><strong>Ajamu Baraka</strong> 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. </em> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://freedomarchives.org/">https://freedomarchives.org/</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>