Joe Biden’s Marxism

Joe Biden’s Marxism

Jim Kavanagh

After all the ridiculous right-wing accusations that Democratic politicians like Barack Obama and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are “socialists” or “communists” or “Marxists,” we might as well take the opportunity to extract the lesson in Marxism implied in Joe Biden’s farewell address.

By way of preface, I’ll point out that accusing political opponents of being “Marxist” did not start in the era of Barack Obama and did not always come from the Republican right. One of the strangest such incidents occurred during a 1976 presidential debate between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, in which implications of Marxism were unexpectedly used to smack down an opponent. In trying to defend the recent Republican unemployment record, Ford demurred that unemployment during previous Democratic administrations was lower because more men were in the army fighting the Vietnam War: “I must remind him [Carter] that we’re at peace and during the period that he brags about unemployment being low, the United States was at war.”

To which Carter replied that Ford was “insinuating that ...unemployment could only be held down when this country is at war. Karl Marx said that the free enterprise system in a democracy can only continue to exist when they are at war or preparing far [sic] war. Karl Marx was the grandfather of Communism. I don’t agree with that statement. I hope Mr. Ford doesn’t either.”

Gerald Ford had indeed echoed the argument of Marxist economists Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy, in Monopoly Capital, that roughly the same proportion of the workforce was either in the military, unemployed, or dependent on welfare in the 1960s as during the Great Depression, with the difference that a higher percentage were in the military in the 60s. Carter apparently recognized this source, and said—not that that Ford’s statement was false, but. essentially: “That’s a Marxist argument, so it can’t be entertained. As I’m sure Mr. Ford will agree.” Mic drop, American style.

Well, I’ll take the occasion to do a reverse Jimmy Carter, drawing out the Marxist implications in this excerpt from Biden’s farewell speech in order not to dismiss but to take them seriously:

That’s why in my farewell address tonight, I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And this is a dangerous — and that’s, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We see the consequences all across America. And we’ve seen it before.

More than a century ago, the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts. They didn’t punish the wealthy. They just made the wealthy play by the rules everybody else had. Workers want rights to earn their fair share. You know, they were dealt into the deal, and it helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class, the most prosperous century any nation the world has ever seen. We’ve got to do that again.

Actually, Joe, an oligarchy has taken shape in America. a “dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultrawealthy people.”  Yes, “we’ve seen it before,” and neither the “trust busters” of over a century ago nor the New Deal and post-war policies ended that oligarchy, although the latter did for a while ameliorate its effects.

Shallow Marxist Trashing of Truckers

There’s a talking point being passed around by certain self-identified marxists and socialists, dismissing the truckers who are resisting vaccine mandates because they are not “workers” but “owner-operators” who, since they “own” their own trucks are actually small capitalists and therefore not worthy of class solidarity. Indeed, they can be treated as class enemies.

It’s hard to conjure up a shallower, more self-defeating use of marxist language.

These truckers “own their own trucks” the way most struggling families own their own homes—they own a debt, which makes them more economically insecure, and places a further burden on them to work harder for the banks and finance companies that are always one step away from depriving them of their livelihood. What kind of self-sabotaging “socialist” political paradigm would dismiss all homeowners as petit-bourgeois class enemies rather than approach them with solidarity, working hard to ally with their concrete struggles and persuade them to ally with the more general socialist project—since they are in fact indispensable to it?

“Owner-operator,” “contractor,” “self-employed”—all these ambiguous class locations are the constructs of neo-liberalism, which has reveled in confusing class relations by hiding the power of big capital behind a sea of socially-weakened, infinitely-at-risk, “entrepreneurs.” The project of neo-liberal capitalism has been to destroy jobs themselves, to dispense with any smattering of job security, and to abolish all concepts of capital’s relation to, let alone responsibility to, labor. It’s precisely neo-liberalism’s wet dream to turn the working-class into a mass of incipient "entrepreneurs," every one dreaming to hit the Shark Tank jackpot in a social economy that dooms most of them to failure. For a non-shallow marxism, it’s should be seen as a reversion to a modern version of piece-work. You know, like the nineteenth-century women sent home to work on their sewing machines. Owner-operators.

So, when a diverse and united group of workers actually stands up in solidarity and collective action to resist an injustice for the whole of society—which is what they (and I) consider these mandates to be (argue that if you want, without the faux-marxist diversions)—it is utterly foolish, and destructive of any chance of developing a class-based revolutionary politics, for judgemental “leftists,” using the shallowest of marxist rhetoric, to reject and shit on them for occupying the social position neo-liberal capitalism has forced them into, for not being the abstract “worker” they are supposed to be.

It is a complete abandonment of marxism/communism 101: A mass, left, working-class movement, which we lack, has to be built with the working-class we have, not the one we wish for.

The Siege of Venezuela and The Travails of Empire

Not on CNN or MSNBC. Four of the huge pro-government rallies held throughout Venezuela on February 1^st 
(Photo: PSUV)

Here’s the bullet-point version:

• It’s imperialism.
• It’s American imperialism, a bipartisan national project.
• American imperialism is the global management of capitalist class power.
• It’s a binary situation in which one side or the other will win via the use and threat of armed force.
• It’s trouble for Venezuela and for imperialism.
• There’s no such thing as Progressive Except Imperialism.

Here’s the long rant:

The United States government’s new offensive against Venezuela is an act of naked imperialism.

I predicted last year that Venezuela would be the first new country hit by the Trump administration’s indispensable need to establish its American-exceptionalist, “Presidentialist,” bona fides. It is the Goldilocks target. Not too small: It is, in fact, a significant country with world's largest oil reserves, and a proclaimed socialist government that's been a thorn in the gringo boot on Latin America for almost twenty years. Not too big: It’s no military match for U.S. & Latin American proxy armed forces, and nobody will start WWIII to defend it. Just right: A decisive win, at little apparent cost. And just the kind of amuse-bouche needed to get the U.S. population’s juices flowing for a more costly and difficult attack on the ultimate target—Iran. At least, that’s the way they think.

Socialism Demands Stewardship

For Marx at least, don't you know.

h/t Solidarity