<\/p>\n
The fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism is not simply a question of private vs. state ownership of the means of production but of the nature of the state itself. This is because the state is an instrument of class dictatorship. In this epoch, the state will be either a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or a dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat has only one rationale for its existence which is to transform class society into classless society and the state into a non-state that will wither away as classless society is achieved. However, there is a great danger of the dictatorship of the proletariat transforming back into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and thereby restoring capitalism, so long as classes continue to exist under socialism.<\/p>\n
Class struggle intensifies under socialism, and will until the basis of class divisions no longer continues to be present. Communism is necessarily a global system, stateless and classless and without national boundaries. At this stage in the evolution of capitalist-imperialism, independent national states have ceased to exist as the global capitalist system becomes ever more hegemonic. In this period the World Proletarian Socialist Revolution cannot simply liberate one country at a time and meanwhile peacefully co-exist with the global capitalist system. Rather we must wage revolution globally to defeat capitalist-imperialism and achieve a global dictatorship of the proletariat. A system of global revolutionary intercommunalism would be the logical form for this proletarian dictatorship.<\/p>\n
The U.S. Military is deployed globally with bases in the majority of countries and \u201cpartnership\u201d arrangements to train and advise most of the world\u2019s armed forces. The U.S. is the dominant force in NATO and of the United Nations\u2019 armed forces. A recent report by the Institute for Economics and Peace found a mere ten nations on the planet are not at war and completely free from conflict. The report cites an historic 10-year deterioration in world peace, with the \u201cnumber of refugees and displaced persons increased dramatically over the decade, doubling from 2007 to 2015, to approximately 60 million people. There are nine countries with more than 10 per cent of their population classified as refugees or displaced persons with Somalia and South Sudan having more than 20 per cent of their population displaced and Syria with over 60 per cent displaced.\u201d<\/i><\/em>[1]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> According to the report, the United States spends an outrageously high percentage of the globe\u2019s military expenditures \u2014 38 percent \u2014 while the next largest military spender, China, accounted for considerably less, 10 percent of the global share.[2]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n The principle contradiction in the world today is between the need of the monopoly capitalist ruling class to consolidate its global hegemony and the chaos and anarchy (including the threat of a Third World War) it is unleashing by attempting to do so. The so-called \u201cWar on Terrorism\u201d is but a front for capitalist-imperialism\u2019s aggressive attempts to consolidate its global bourgeois dictatorship and subordinate every country to its hegemonic control. The essence of communism is community, and capitalist-imperialism is the antithesis of community, particularly under neo-liberalism, which is the final stage of imperialism. As George Monbiot explained:<\/p>\n \u201cThe term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938<\/a>. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt\u2019s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain\u2019s welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.<\/p>\n \u201cIn The Road to Serfdom<\/em><\/em><\/a>, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises\u2019s book Bureaucracy<\/em><\/em><\/a>, The Road to Serfdom<\/em><\/em> was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism\u2014the Mont Pelerin Society\u2014it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.<\/p>\n \u201cWith their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe<\/em><\/em><\/a> as \u201ca kind of neoliberal International\u201d: a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement\u2019s rich backers funded a series of think tanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.<\/p>\n \u201cAs it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek\u2019s view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way, among American apostles such as Milton Friedman, to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As an ideology, neoliberalism borrows heavily from Trotskyism. \u201cOne can view neoliberalism as Trotskyism refashioned for elite<\/i><\/em>.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Instead of “proletarians of all countries unite<\/i><\/b><\/em><\/strong>” we have [the] slogan “neoliberal elites of all countries unite.<\/i><\/b><\/em><\/strong>“[5]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Stalin purged Trotsky, but some of his disciples made the transition to become founding intellectuals of neoliberal ideology, and in particular its \u201cneo-conservative\u201d wing. \u201cNeoliberalism is also an example of emergence of ideologies, not from their persuasive power or inner logic, but from the private interests of the ruling elite.\u00a0 Political pressure and money created the situation in which intellectually bankrupt ideas could prevail much like Catholicism prevailed during Dark Ages in Europe. In a way, this is return to Dark Ages on a new level.\u201d[6]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Trotsky\u2019s elitism and contempt for the masses led naturally to neoliberalism. As M.J. Olgin pointed out: Today Trotskyism no more confines itself to \u201cinforming\u201d the bourgeoisie. Today Trotskyism is the center and the rallying point for the enemies of the Soviet Union, of the proletarian revolution in capitalist countries, of the Communist International. Trotskyism is trying not only to disintegrate the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, but also to disintegrate the forces that make for the dictatorship of the proletariat the world over.<\/i><\/em>[7]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Neoliberalism also borrows from the ideology of fascism. As Giovanni Gentile, \u201cThe Philosopher of Fascism\u201d expressed in a quote often attributed to Mussolini: \u201c<\/b><\/strong>Fascism should more properly be called corporatism<\/b><\/strong>, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.\u201d Gentile also stated in The Origins and Doctrine of Fascism<\/i><\/em>, that “mankind only progresses through division, and progress is achieved through the clash and victory of one side over another.”[8]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Neoliberalism is a new form of corporatism based on the ideology of market fundamentalism, dominance of finance and cult of rich (\u201cgreed is good\u201d) instead of the ideology on racial or national superiority typical for classic corporatism. Actually, some elements of the idea of \u201cnational superiority\u201d were preserved in a form superiority of \u201ccorporate management\u201d and top speculators over other people. In a way, neoliberalism considers bankers and corporations top management to be a new Aryan race. As it relies on financial mechanisms and banks instead of brute force of subduing people the practice of neoliberalism outside of the G7 is also called neocolonialism. Neoliberal practice within G7 is called casino capitalism, an apt term that underscore<\/i><\/em>[s] the role of finance and stock exchange in this new social order. Neoliberalism is an example of emergence of ideologies not from their persuasive power or inner logic, but from the private interests of ruling elite. Political pressure and money created the situation in which intellectually bankrupt ideas could prevail\u2026.<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n Neoliberalism is not a collection of theories meant to improve the economy. Instead, it should be understood as a class strategy designed to redistribute wealth upward toward an increasingly narrow fraction of population (top 1%). It is the Marxist idea of \u201cclass struggle\u201d turned on its head and converted into a perverted \u201crevolt of the elite,\u201d unsatisfied with the peace of the pie it is getting from the society. While previously excessive greed was morally condemned, neoliberalism employed a slick trick of adopting \u201creverse,\u201d Nietzschean Ubermench morality in bastartized form propagated in the USA under the name of Randism.<\/i><\/em>[9]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n This neoliberal transformation of the society into a top 1% (or, more correctly, 0.01%) \u201chave and have more\u201d and \u201cthe rest\u201d undermined and exploited by financial oligarchy with near complete indifference to what happens with the most unprotected lower quintile of the population. The neoliberal reformers don\u2019t care about failures and contradictions of the economic system which drive the majority of country population into abject poverty, as it happened in Russia. Nor do they care about their actions such as blowing financial bubbles, like in the USA in 2008 can move national economics toward disaster. They have a somewhat childish, simplistic \u201cgreed is good\u201d mentality: they just want to have their (as large as possible) piece of economic pie fast and everything else be damned. In a way, they are criminals and neoliberalism is a highly criminogenic creed, but it tried to conceal the racket and plunder it inflicts of the societies under the dense smoke screen of \u201cfree market\u201d newspeak.<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n That means that in most countries neoliberalism is an unstable social order as plunder can\u2019t continue indefinitely. It was partially reversed in Chile, Russia, and several other countries. It was never fully adopted in northern Europe.<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n One can see an example of this smoke screen in Thatcher\u2019s dictum of neoliberalism: \u201cThere is no such thing as society. There are only individuals and families.\u201d In foreign policy neoliberalism behaves like brutal imperialism which subdue countries either by debt slavery or direct military intervention. In a neoliberal view the world consist of four concentric cycles which in order of diminishing importance are\u2026.<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n Finance is accepted as the most important institution of the civilization which should govern all other spheres of life. It is clear that such a one-dimensional view is wrong, but neoliberals like communists before them have a keen sense of mission and made its \u201clong march through the institutions\u201d and changed the way Americans think (Using the four \u201cM\u201d strategy \u2014 money, media, marketing, and management)<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n A well-oiled machine of foundations, lobbies, think-tanks, economic departments of major universities, publications, political cadres, lawyers and activist organizations slowly and strategically took over nation after nation. A broad alliance of neo-liberals, neo-conservatives and the religious right successfully manufactured a new common sense, assaulted Enlightenment values and formed a new elite, the top layer of society, where this \u201cgreed is good\u201d culture is created and legitimized.<\/i><\/em>[10]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Donald Trump is a visible product of this culture, but clearly is not the choice of the elite ruling class to serve as their \u201cfront man\u201d for President. Rather, his role seems to have been to polarize the electorate in such a way as to assure Hillary Clinton the election, just as Bernie Sanders played a role of mobilizing the left-neoliberal camp and then sheep-dogging it into Hillary\u2019s camp. As Bruce A. Dixon explained:<\/p>\n \u201cBernie Sanders is this election’s Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there’s no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two-party box.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Once you realize what the principle contradiction in the world is, and how the game of bourgeois \u201cdemocracy\u201d is played, the current election become as predictable and blatantly scripted as professional wrestling. As Victor Wallace explained:<\/p>\n \u201cAn extraordinary feature of the U.S. electoral process is that the two dominant parties collude to dictate \u2013 via their own bipartisan \u201ccommission\u201d \u2013 who is allowed to participate in the officially recognized presidential debates. Needless to say, the two parties set impossible barriers to the participation of any candidates other than their own<\/i><\/em><\/a>.<\/i><\/em> Most potential voters are thereby prevented from acquainting themselves with alternatives to the dominant consensus.<\/p>\n \u201cThis practice has taken on glaring proportions in the 2016 campaign, which has been marked by justified public distrust of both the dominant-party tickets. Preventing election-theft would initially require breaking up the bipartisan stranglehold over who can access the tens of millions of voters.<\/p>\n \u201cAnother distinctive U.S. trait is the absence of any constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Instead, a multiplicity of state laws govern voter-eligibility, as well as ballot-access. A few states set ballot-access requirements so high as to effectively disqualify their residents from supporting otherwise viable national candidacies. As for voter-eligibility, it is deliberately narrowed through the time-honored practice of using \u201cstates\u2019 rights\u201d to impose racist agendas. Most states deny voting rights to ex-convicts, a practice that currently disenfranchises some 6 million citizens, disproportionately from communities of color. More recently, targeting the same constituencies, many states have passed onerous and unnecessary voter-ID laws.<\/p>\n \u201cThe role of money in filtering out viable candidacies is well known. It was reinforced by the Supreme Court\u2019s Citizens United<\/i><\/em> decision of 2010, which opened the gate to unlimited corporate contributions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe priorities of corporate media point in a similar direction. Even apart from their taste for campaign-advertising, their orientation toward celebrity and sensationalism prompts them to give far more air-time to well known figures \u2013 the more outrageous, the better \u2013 than to even the most viable candidates who present serious alternatives. Trump\u2019s candidacy was thus \u201cmade\u201d by the media, even as they kept the Sanders challenge to Clinton as deep in the shadows as possible<\/i><\/em><\/a>.\u201d[12]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Moreover, the media, which in the U.S. is 90% owned by just six mega-corporations,[13]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> cooperates closely with the dominant establishment of the two parties in framing the questions that are posed in the debates. And they explicitly maintain the fiction that the \u201ccommission\u201d running the debates is \u201cnon-partisan\u201d when in fact it is bipartisan.[14]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n \u201cTurning finally to the voting process itself, the longest-running scandal is the holding of elections on a workday. In recent years, the resulting inconvenience has been partially offset by the institution of early voting, which however has the disadvantage of facilitating premature choices and of being subject to varied and volatile rules set by state legislatures.<\/p>\n \u201cThe actual casting of votes on Election Day is further subject to a number of possible abuses. These include: 1) insufficient polling places in poor neighborhoods, sometimes resulting in waiting periods so long that individuals no longer have the time to vote; 2) the sometimes aggressive challenging of voters\u2019 eligibility by interested parties; 3) the use of provisional ballots which may easily end up not being counted; and 4), perhaps most significantly, the increasingly complete reliance on computerized voting, which allows for manipulation of the results (via \u201cproprietary\u201d programs) in a manner that cannot be detected. (The probability of such manipulation \u2013 based on discrepancies between exit-polls and official tallies \u2013 was documented by Marc Crispin Miller in his book<\/a> on the 2004 election.<\/p>\n \u201cThe corporate media add a final abuse in their rush \u2013 in presidential races \u2013 to announce results in some states before the voting process has been completed throughout the country.\u201d[15]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Despite multiple releases of hacked e-mails by WikiLeaks revealing the whole process in detail, it seems to have little effect on the masses or on the game. The most recent batch come from Obama\u2019s personal e-mail account and reveal that the Bush administration contacted the future president multiple times before the election in 2008, secretly organizing the transition of power. In one e-mail President Bush states:<\/p>\n \u201cWe are now at the point of deciding how to staff economic policy during the transition, who should be the point of contact with Treasury and how to blend the transition and campaign economic policy talent.<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n Normally these decisions could be made after the election, and ideally after the selection of a National Economic Advisor, but, of course, these are not normal times.<\/b><\/strong><\/i><\/em>\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hillary Clinton\u2019s response has been to claim that the WikiLeaks\u2019 exposures come from the \u201chighest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election,\u201d[17]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> and to accuse Trump of being Putin\u2019s puppet. Not exactly a denial of the accuracy of the content of the e-mails, nor does she present proof of Russia\u2019s involvement. And even if true, is this any different than the well-documented cases of Israel\u2019s long-standing involvement in spying on the U.S. and acting to influence U.S. elections or the recent allegations of U.S. interference in Israel\u2019s election,[18]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> or for that matter U.S. interference with elections and forced regime changes in countries all over the world. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has recently released a video on YouTube<\/i><\/em>, asserting that his sources are DNC whistleblowers not Russians.[19]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n The strategy of picking the \u201clesser evil\u201d is a losing strategy. Is it a coincidence that all the corporate CEO\u2019s and most of the \u201cleft-wing\u201d neoliberals agree on Trump being the \u201clesser evil?\u201d In reality, Trump is less hawkish than Hillary. At least he doesn\u2019t seem to have any ambition to lock horns with Russia over Syria. Indeed, the WikiLeaks\u2019 exposures show Trump to be Hillary\u2019s puppet, not Putin\u2019s. This was alleged by Jeb Bush, back during the Republican primaries: Jeb stated that Trump previously was one of Clinton\u2019s largest supporters, not only by verbally expressing that he hoped she won the election, but financially contributing to her campaign. Bush explained that it seems \u201ctoo good to be true\u201d that Trump suddenly doesn\u2019t support Hillary and has a plan \u201cto make America great again.\u201d He believes it is much more likely that he is part of the Hillary campaign and is doing \u201chis part\u201d to ensure his friend elected in November.<\/i><\/em>[20]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Nonetheless, the Bush family have, since Jeb\u2019s defeat, made known their preference for Hillary as have many of the Republican Party establishment. The illusion of \u201cdemocracy\u201d is wearing thin:<\/p>\n Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday on the nationally syndicated radio show\u00a0the <\/i><\/em>Thom Hartmann Program<\/i><\/em><\/a>\u00a0that the United States is now an \u201coligarchy\u201d in which\u00a0\u201cunlimited political bribery\u201d has created\u00a0\u201ca complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors.\u201d Both Democrats and Republicans, Carter said, \u201clook upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves.\u201d<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n Carter\u00a0was responding\u00a0to a question from Hartmann about recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign financing like\u00a0<\/i><\/em>Citizens United<\/em><\/em>.<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n Transcript:<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, \u201cunlimited money in politics.\u201d It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. \u2026 Your thoughts on that?<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it\u2019s\u00a0just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we\u2019ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election\u2019s over. \u2026 The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody\u2019s who\u2019s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who\u2019s just a challenger<\/i><\/em>.[21]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not only is the illusion of democracy wearing thin, but so is the effectiveness of anti-communist brainwashing:<\/p>\n More than one in five U.S. millennials would be open to backing a communist candidate, and a third believe George W. Bush killed more people than Joseph Stalin, according to a new poll released Monday.<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n The poll<\/i><\/em><\/a>,\u00a0commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and carried out by YouGov, surveyed Americans of all ages about their attitudes towards communism, socialism, and the American economic system\u00a0in general.<\/i><\/em><\/p>\n Overall, the poll found, Americans remain broadly hostile to socialism and communism, even though 67 percent of the populace believes rich people don\u2019t pay \u201ctheir fair share\u201d and 52 percent believe America\u2019s economic system works against them.<\/i><\/em>[22]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n According to a recent Gallup poll, 49% of Americans 18 to 35 have a favorable view of socialism.[23]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> A 1999 BBC opinion poll saw Karl Marx voted the \u201cMillennium\u2019s Greatest Thinker.\u201d[24]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> A surprising 64 percent of Americans agreed with the classic Karl Marx statement that underpins Marxist philosophy: \u201cFrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs<\/b><\/strong>.\u201d[25]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> All of this shows that neoliberalism is alienating a growing section of the masses and the alternative of socialism and eventual communism has the potential to win the masses\u2019 support. As Mao expressed: “The socialist system will eventually replace the capitalist system; this is an objective law independent of man’s will. However much the reactionaries try to hold back the wheel of history, eventually revolution will take place and will inevitably triumph.”[26]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n \u201cImperialism will not last long because it always does evil things. It persists in grooming and supporting reactionaries in all countries who are against the people, it has forcibly seized many colonies and semi-colonies and many military bases, and it threatens the peace with atomic war. Thus, forced by imperialism to do so, more than 90 per cent of the people of the world are rising or will rise in struggle against it. Yet, imperialism is still alive, still running amuck in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In the West imperialism is still oppressing the people at home. This situation must change. It is the task of the people of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by imperialism, and chiefly by U.S. imperialism.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win\u2026. All Power to the People!<\/p>\n [1]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Bernish, Claire, \u201cOnly 10 Countries in the Entire World Are Not Currently at War,\u201d AntiMedia.org, <\/i><\/em>June 9, 2016<\/p>\n [2]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n [3]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Monboit, George, \u201cNeoliberalism Is Destroying Almost Everybody’s Lives\u2014How Many People Even Know What It Is?\u201d, Alternet, <\/i><\/em>April 25, 2016<\/p>\n [4]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> www.softpanorama.org\/…\/Neoliberalism\/neoliberalism_as_trotskyism_for_the_rich<\/em><\/p>\n\n
Notes<\/h3>\n