Door Walter Smolarek |

Aangezien de schijnbaar eindeloze periode van het politieke een campagne voeren in de Verenigde Staten spoedig aan het sluiten zal trekken, moeten wij op de linkerzijde tot de schade toegang hebben; maar wat nog belangrijker is, moeten wij de middelen begrijpen waardoor de schade werd behandeld; het „representatieve democratische“ systeem. In deze uitvoering van bourgeois democratie waren er twee lijnen van direct voordeel: aan de uitspraakklasse als geheel door (verkeerd) zijn politieke legitimiteit en een andere aan de collectieve media opnieuw te bevestigen, waarin de enorme fiscale reserves die door de campagnes Obama worden verzameld en McCain worden gedeponeerd. Hopped omhoog op het nieuwe opiaat van de massa's (millionaire van Harvard neemt „verandering over“), kiezersturnout is verbindend hoog om te zijn terwijl de classificaties omhoogschieten en de advertentieopbrengsten exploderen. Al tijdje deze politiek-middelenwisselwerking het duidelijk dat als verkiezing-industriële complex de uitspraakklasse definitief gevonden een manier maakt om deze pesky gewoonte te maken van stemming zijn financieel gewicht dragen.

Politieke Verschansing

Alvorens wij in de (vrij nieuwe) economische voordelen aan bepaalde sectoren (duidelijk niet de economie als geheel) speuren, moeten wij herzien wat bourgeois parliamentarianism zo voor het behoud van kapitalisme noodzakelijk maakt. Teruggaand in geschiedenis aan de overgang van feodaal naar bourgeois regel, zou het tough verkoopt voor de ontluikende kapitalistische klasse om absolutism van de gelande lage adel te weerspiegelen zijn. Enerzijds, moesten sommige concessies worden gedaan, maar op andere moest de dictatuur van een minderheidsklasse nog worden afgedwongen. Een systeem afhankelijk van collectief contant geld, kiesostracism, en (zoals zal worden geconcentreerd op later) media hegemonie moest worden gesmeed, gekleed in het fonkelen retoriek om progressieve krachten en dupe te vangen de overgrote meerderheid. De gevestigde media, als instelling afhankelijk van het kapitalistische systeem, zullen natuurlijk een belangrijke rol in het voorstellen van deze illusie van keus spelen.

Alvorens wij kunnen begrijpen enkel hoe scheefgetrokken de versie van de verkiezing de collectieve media geven, moeten wij het echte beeld krijgen. Wij hebben John McCain, millionaire van een militaire familie die famously zeven huizen bezit, en het verzetten vanzich hem is Barrack Obama, een Harvard-Opgeleide millionaire advocaat. Zoals voor de huidige financiële crisis, weten wij waar allebei van hun belangen liggen. Vanaf het recente aantal van September Obama medewerker is Goldman Sachs, dat dicht door Citigroup bij nummer drie wordt gevolgd terwijl 35% van de hoogste 20 donors van Obama met grote banken worden verbonden. At the same time, the five largest donors to the McCain campaign are major banks, with Merrill Lynch taking the top spot, kept company by the 60% of his top 20 contributors who are major players in the banking industry.

Both candidates are ardent imperialists; they just differ on their preferred target. McCain, as architect of the surge, has made it clear that he’d like to continue the occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Obama is widely seen as the peace candidate, although he has used phrases like “residual forces” in order to mask the fact that he plans on leaving behind tens of thousands of soldiers to deny the Iraqi people sovereignty. However, he has, quite openly, called for an escalation in Afghanistan. Apparently moving mass-slaughter east a few hundred miles is change we can believe in. On Iran, McCain and Obama keep referring to the government as a sponsor of terrorism (read: not subservient to the West), and both back sanctions that, as the tragedy in Iraq during the later half of the 1990s has shown, are just as devastating as weapons of mass destruction. Obama might carry a bigger carrot and McCain a bigger stick, but every action they’ll take towards the Third World will advance the same arrogant imperialist system.

A race between almost identical candidates presents a twofold problem to the media and the bourgeoisie. First, something this inconsequential doesn’t sell advertising time. Second, not only will people be bored, but, infinitely worse, they’ll be angry. God help the capitalists if people vote for a progressive like Cynthia McKinney or a revolutionary like Gloria LaRiva. Collectively and in a decentralized fashion driven by a common goal, a script rivaling the latest Hollywood blockbuster was put together.

The country is in crisis, an unpopular president has led an unpopular war and the economy is on the verge of collapse. Who appears to rescue the ignorant masses? Barrack Obama! He looks different than those who proceeded him, his name sounds different (his bank account looks the same); he has to represent change, right? But this untested man might not be up for the task; who could challenge this newcomer in the tradition of the hard-line heroes of yesteryear we once trusted with our safety (and the rest of the world burned in effigy)? A maverick, a war hero (don’t let the burnt flesh of innocent Vietnamese men, women, and children lead you to call him something else), John McCain. And the best part is that you get to “decide”! * Not applicable to undocumented workers or felons

Economic Perks

Beyond the theoretical consequences that overt tyranny (or, more accurately, what would very soon replace it) would have on the financial situation of the corporate media, there is a direct business opportunity that presents itself to motivate not only the executives at the top but the rank-and-file reporters for almost impeccable collusion with the greater capitalist superstructure. Tremendous yields are derived from the spectacle of the bourgeois elections, demonstrably so with the television news networks.

CNN, one of the giants of cable news, attracted roughly 2 million viewers in February of 2008, when the primary elections were heating up. Between 2004 and 2008 (when coverage of the 04 presidential election, mid-term election, and 08 presidential election flowed together almost without a pause), CNN doubled its profits, making an extra $200,000,000. Media behemoth News Corp. (owner of Fox News) reported (also in February 2008) a 9.5% increase in revenue and a $10,000,000 increase in net income, greasing the wheels of Murdoch’s acquisition of Dow Jones. NBC (owner of MSNBC) saw a huge increase in revenue as the primaries began, 8% ($33,000,000) and a 10% increase in profits.

Beyond increases in ad revenue for the television stations, print, radio, even non-media sectors (signs have to be made, venues rented, etc.) benefited. To understand the magnitude of this, we have to look at the enormous sums of cash raised by the campaigns. Cumulatively, the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party have gathered $511,040,553. Their Republican counterparts have together raised $415,950,247; meaning that the twin parties of war and capitalism have, together, nearly one billion dollars to funnel to their close friends, the bourgeois captains of industry. Coupled with increases in profit for local news outlets as well as international ones, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that American “Democracy” is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Our Democracy

When speaking of building a society based on the participation of the masses of society, they have failed (as I hope I’ve just made obvious), we will succeed. What will our democracy look like? Sparing the details of how this new apparatus of government will be established or what exactly the institutions by which the will of the people is executed will look like, there are several principles we must adhere to. First of all, for the people to truly be masters of their collective destiny, civic institutions must be participatory. At all levels, the representatives must be constantly in touch with constituents. Of course, different institutions of state power will carry this out as appropriate; municipal officials may rely on community meetings while national delegates may hear the voice of the people via mass organizations (trade unions, cooperative federations, etc.). All elected officials must be subject to swift recall at any time and, most importantly, they must be of the same stock as the vast majority of society; they must be working class people themselves.

The above, however, is secondary. Civic institutions are set up to meet the needs of those who hold material power, the ruling class. So what institutions of economic participation can assure that the people rule? First, democracy must begin at the workplace level. The day to day administration of the means of production, whether it’s a fast food restaurant or a major auto plant, must be left to the workers and their democratically elected workplace leaders. In facilitating this democratic process, trade unions or other independent, revolutionary mass organizations could play a very helpful role. In order to eliminate the anarchy in production, and inequality and stratification amongst the working class itself as well as defend this new society, a planned economy is an absolute must. This, by necessity, will be done at a broad, national level. However, the process by which these plans are made must be based primarily on consultations with all sectors of society so that it truly represents the needs and wants of the vast majority and prevents bureaucratic corruption.

The radical left must organize the fight for a new society, but do so tactically. Does this mean voting for the lesser of two evils? Certainly not; in fact, Obama’s “Hope” will do nothing but pump life into the dieing capitalist system. Does this mean running tactically in the elections? Certainly; if possible, we should use bourgeois institutions as a platform to spread the message that there is an alternative to this wretched system. We must expose the hypocrisy of the bourgeois show elections, in large part by pointing out the profiteers and their role in shaping public opinion. As neo-liberalism begins to collapse, let’s use the 2008 elections as both a starting point for a mass movement and an example of the fact that capitalism and democracy are antithetical.