INDIA

It is one of the greatest paradoxes why India could be kept under British rule for so long. And how it was that so little changed after independence - so as to form an effective continuum.

We have seen how late utopianism (sub quantum component - John Brown) led to the consolidation of the USA. And even in Ireland 1916, the blood sacrifice of James Connolly/Padraig Pearse was instrumental in delegitimising British rule.

The Irish independence movement was viable because it possessed geo pol/econ points of support vis the partial restraint of the British ruling class by the British working class - If they had gone for TOTAL war as would otherwise have been required, would have led to civil war on the mainland.

For this reason the Irish ruling elite had to (and therefore inevitably would) accept leadership over the movement (through Sinn Fein) to prevent labor from taking the lead (similar to role of Lincoln & co in the USA civil war - even if a more stagnant/fascized radicalism).

(1916 and the USA civil war) Utopianism manifests itself as a free standing current. Because by delegitimising a particular component of the regime (eg Slaveholders/imperialist occupation of Ireland) it is able to establish an operational connexion with laborism in the core states - (establishing a process of violent dialogue) which cannot be totally repressed, as it would have to be (British masses might not have been willing to take the field for Ireland, but neither were they prepared to be ground down completely for its subjugation) - while there still remains geo pol/econ room for capitalism to develop.

In Russia (periphery of the Euro core) geo pol/econ support of the core state masses (eg an unwillingness to bear the cost of repression of USSR) enabled Bolshevik Russia to survive (after the landlordist centre of gravity/legitimacy broke down in WWI). GLOBAL (as opposed to an ultra reactionary fraction of) capital could not repress USSR without destroying its own (worker) demand base. Which in turn (confronted by its workers) it could never make up its mind to do for as long as geo politically inspired reform offered it an alternative way forward.

The USSR therefore (never being a real operational revolutionary threat) was buttressed by a connexion with laborism in turn buttressed by the (then) requirements of (then dynamic) capitalist hegemony.

The Character & Reslience of Indian Fuedalsim

India can largely be described as being made up of `radical sub entities' - upon which empires extract (agricultural) surplus social product to build themselves (a variant of military feudalism) until a point beyond which they could expand no further and the centre collapsed under its' own weight (internal decomposition/ peasant revolts). And new empires reconfigured themselves on the same base. Though the sub entity in itself, was not a viable central power - at least for greater part of India.

The decline of the Mughal empire allowed (initially Dupleix - but held back by French continental- orientated policy) the E. India corps to expand into India, playing one party of against another, to expand its' influence.

Beyond a given point , the old internecine modes of conquest were insufficient in themselves to take the E. India Co. forward. As beyond a given point, (as E. India corps' power increasingly eclipsed, completely, Mughal power), they appeared as the greater threat to Indian Princes (rather than each other). Therefore scope for playing them of against each other became increasingly threadbare.

This meant, beyond such a point, that only a frontal attack on the princes could increase the power of E. India corps.

Indeed (while there has been a lot of hypocritical guff hurled at the E. India corp to the contrary), it was (from the standpoint of imperialism) neccessary to embark on a full frontal assault (by Dalhousie) to enable further expansion - by annexing princes land in order to force a revolt (1857) by the princes, and consequent suppression (of the Princes) . To establish recognition of the crown (by previously independent princes) consolidating a compradorist/imperialist alliance (eg legitimating revenue collection in the eyes of the princes) - binding previously independent princes more tightly to it.

With the coming of the British, there was no longer any effective basis for peasant revolt. As (unlike before) peasants now trapped under the princes - post 1857 absorbed by the regime. But, via the mechanism of war, already in the process of absorption by the imperialist regime before then.

Consequently therefore peasant revolt not sufficient in and of itself to bring down the old power centre - which now rested in E. India corps hands (princes only their power medium). This meant complete political/historical impotence/marginalisation for the peasantry.

Between 1857 and the Russian Revolution, there existed dialogue between imperialists and compradors within the classical imperialist construct. (Internecine state) compradors had a fear of opening the door to the masses - hence the use of sectarianism as a means to keep the masses under the hegemony of the landlords, Hindu and Muslim.

Eg the marginalisation of the peasantry (until the bi polar world) meant Indian radicalism had an abortive character about it/ could not sustain continuous operations until the bi polar world provided it with geo pol/econ points of support to threaten rebellion unless the British left (conferring legitimacy on a pseudo democratic landlordist regime).

This is WHY was there no Indian 1916

The `legitimacy' of crown recognised by princes - resulting in their absorption thereof (into modern compradorism) into British colonial structure.

Ultimately leading to post WWI-WWII dialogue within framework of imperialism and (in context of a bi polar world) emerging neo colonialism.

The various plebeian radical currents therefore were effectively dead ends as:

No viable centre of pol/econ gravity (for radicals). Why?

In the context of a bi polar world (and the consequent geo pol/econ room for manouevre of Indian landlordism), India was too big to remain occupied. Therefore the (incipient) ruling class had to lead the independence movement (unlike the example of China, on the border of core radical USSR - acting in spite of itself as a point of support for the Chinese peasant war - and India otherwise too big to be absorbed by the core radical bloc, without such close geo proximity), no excuse not to.

By default therefore the Indian ruling class acquired legitimacy, which however fraudulent, could not be delegitimised without global points of support either for core radicalism or quantum materialism. Without global points of support to delegitimise the regime, any movement would instantaneously slip back into laborist/reflex modes of struggle (within a purely national context, without global points of support - under the hegemony of landlordism) - unable therefore to pose a revolutionary reconstructionist program, falling prey to the `overturn, overturn, overturn' dialectic; meaning in turn no unity of insurgent purpose - causing any such dialectic thence (BUT NOT NOW - vis Euro rev connexions) to be stillborn.

(Of course if Indian ruling class didn't attempt to remove British, then they would have lacked legitimacy and masses, leaning on the core radical bloc, would have taken over. But because they could, and so control the agenda, it was inevitable they would)

The only thing thence holding India together (aside from the secession of Pakistan) was the threat of proxy war (in bi polar world). Which insured no class in any state/territory could decisively make up its mind for secession (as costs so high).

All the decisive forces relating to Indian independence pertained, ultimately dependant on the bi polar world:

USA displacement of the British empire. H.P. Long inspired reform of FDR and the emergence of the global pol/econ between the Russian revolt and WWII.

Consequent room for manouevre of Indian landlordism/bourgeois - to threaten British with the masses - secure that they can thence balance between USA & USSR - keeping feudalism intact.

The fear of opening the door to Jacobinism prevailed previously. As Indian landlordism, in and of itself, did not have a viable centre of pol/econ gravity (and only the inertial threat, of bi polar proxy war, could be relied upon to hold India relatively intact - on the basis of landlordist hegemony), to have attempted to do so, ultimately would have led to the logic of `overturn, overturn, overturn' - NO unity of insurgent purpose.

Therefore a tendancy to rely on communalism and the hated British, as props of the social order - until the bi polar world made possible their removal with minimal upheaval. Such was the continuous dialectic of both colonialism and neo colonial independence - with Indian landlordism remaining unbroken.

Independence/Partition/Continuum

Essentially a continuum of 1857 - type landlordist led struggle; yet still aided by USSR, in that in post WWII geo pol/econ context, colonialism (even by USA) impossible (viz India) - eg thence threat of peasant war if no legitimacy - blocking of any such question before it even arose.

The struggle took the form of a triangular conflict between British imperialism, sectarian Hindu landlordism seeking hegemony and sectarian Muslim landlords seeking regional hegemony. Sectarianism in the movement(s) was absolutely inevitable as a tool by landlordism to secure/retain control of the situation (eg to prevent slippage into a peasant war against them).

The secular tendencies in the Muslim League occupied the same position in relation to Pakistan as the similar element of congress did in India - Eg hopelessly subordinate to the sectarian hegemony/convenience of the landlords.

Therefore eclipsed. De jure in Pakistan (due to being able to play on fear of a larger neighbour), de facto in India (no such threat available to justify such naked official chauvinism, therefore commitment to formal (though not substantive) democracy.

Neo colonialism/global finance re-inforced landlordism in that simply there existed no geo pol/econ points of support for the overthrow of Indian landlordism - eg on basis of being contained within a core radical context OR on basis of quantum materialism. Eg (without geo pol/econ points of support) any such struggle sinking back into localised decayed laborist struggle, and consequently immediate atomisation

(on the basis of feudal democracy tied in with formal legitimacy - existing precisely because masses unable to martial forces sufficient to overthrow the regime, with the aid of global points of pol/econ support, therefore no retreat into open dictatorship- such as occurred in China pre Mao).

Such as occurred in L. America under military (USA proxy nat sec state cold war) dictatorships (India was too large therefore no excuse for open dictatorship in India); and Britain under hegemony of post cold war global finance. Hence the specific form of neo (cryptic) fascist atomisation and feudal (nominal) democracy in India - before L. America etc.

With such a state of entrenched decomposition, why didn't India fragment before/after Independence into its' constituent nationalities?

Geo politically any rebellious nationalities would have had to attach itself onto either of the bi-polar powers - creating a conflict/instability - which (threat of) curiously held it together. Therefore costs of (fear of war etc), against bi polar powers/proxies greater than staying together in an uneasy union. NO class therefore felt decisively disposed to do otherwise (save for Kashmir - the parting gift of the British imperialist cartographers)

(Though with the break up of the bi polar world, there is less and less, certainly by way of an externally enforced inertia - to hold India together).

Indira Gandhi's `left' policy was based on (partial) disillusion in Congress (electoral rejection of - we will deal with the historical role/effect of elections/uprisings in landlordist/neo colonial states later) leading to Indira Gandhi re-aligning to take full advantage of geo pol/econ position (and room for manouevre - balancing between USA & USSR) and adopt a superficial radicalism. Securing something of a power base - above all entrenching her own near monarchical power within the political class.

yet (as with Pakistan - as we shall see) with no fundamental change.

The `Green Revolution' (in agriculture) was triggered by cataclysmic drought in 1965 and a consequant need to increase yields, through a highly capitalised agricultural sector.

This could be done either on the basis of:

Socialist Hegemony - Agri production under WPC hegemony (as outlined in C5 Vol1 of S.O.F. - with evolving common ownership via pension contributions) - with taxation of agri profits in turn providing funds for industrial investment.

Or:

Retrenchment of fuedalism - A high capitalisation of agriculture based on a state subsidisation of `kulaks' - resulting in increased yields but also a retrenchment of impoverishment of the rural poor (and kulaks power over them effectively retrenched by the state) - leading also to industry being starved of funds for investment.

Why did a similar state of affairs collapse in USSR but not in India?

because of the fundamentally different character of the state and geo pol/econ position the different states occuppied in relation to the global pol/econ.

The USSR nat sec state could lean on urban masses against kulaks (to maintain privileged bureaucratic position - precisely because of the external geo pol/econ threat/encirclement).

Wheras in India - Without such a nat sec state excuse (especially with the existence of USSR and China - which would have undermined the nat sec state in each country had India become Stalinist) either socialist hegemony (not possible without global points of support, otherwise radicalism sinks back into national agenda of reflex modes of struggle - reduced ultimately to `overturn, overturn overturn' and no unity of insurgent purpose/state violence against landlordism), Or:

reconsolidation of existing geo pol/econ position - as unable to fundamentally break landlordism (to develop industry - eg provide funds for and stop the drain of into kulakdom) as lacked global points of support (and a viable national centre of gravity thereof) to do otherwise.

Therefore the so called `green Revolution' only served to entrench landlordism.

The 1974 Crisis

Due to the internal weakness of the Indian pol/econ and the failure to reconstruct it, Indian industrial development (such as was - and a largely peripheral phenonemon) remained very vulnerable to external shocks (not helped by a fialure to devlop internal energy reserves - due to lack of funds for investment).

The inflationary impact of the oil crisis resulted in intensified (extra normal) pol/econ tensions - which however represented an intensification of conflict within the existing pol/econ construct.

The 1974 disturbances however did not transcend the general pol/econ construct (which would have required a peasant war led by urban masses, with geo pol/econ support).

Rather than representing a fundamental development, the 1974 state of emergency represented an intensification of existing policy - (unlike L. America - which did represent a fundamental change of pol/econ structure - viz the new entrenched subordination to USA imperialism) using extra legal means (to deal with the crisis) pissing of both workers and landlords. Undermining both left & right supports of the regime.

Indira Gandhi (on the basis executive dictatorship) could not consolidate a viable centre of pol/econ gravity. Why?

to do this (from the left) would have to go too far. Eg smash to smithereens the power of the landlordist class.

By definition therefore Indira Gandhi would have had to threaten the hegemony of global finance.

Ruling out Uruguayan style `Batlisimo' (Jose Batle) - which (as we shall see later) grew from within the geo pol/econ agenda of global finance (as a socialist nation state -later eclipsed by the global hegemony/geo political requirements of capital)

The only way to have achieved this would have been via a rev reconstructionist program - requiring (the aforementioned) global points of pol/econ support. Otherwise sinking back into localised reflex laborist struggles (abortive dialectic of reactionary egalitarianism) and evaporating as a viable point of support thereof.

Clearly therefore, there was no viable left support to consolidate the executive dictatorship or resolve the crisis.

But neither was permanent military dictatorship (without superficial legal/democratic trappings) a viable option either.

There were no geo pol/econ points of support for Indian bureaucratic socialism.

India was simply too big to be subordinate to a core radical bloc (also not geo politically positioned like China - next to the USSR - to enable a peasant war to consolidate a centre of pol/econ gravity) - and has no points of support (like the USSR had - eg growth within the geo pol/econ hegemony of capital - a connexion with laborism in core capitalist states - which in turn could not be repressed by capital, while still room to reconfigurate its geo pol/econ in response) to enable the consolidation of Indian stalinism, therefore the corresponding logic of `overturn, overturn, overturn' (no unity of insurgent purpose - aided by geo pol/econ points of support) leaves it stillborn (also as stated, needs global points of support for ultra modern rev warfare - otherwise collapses back into the aforementioned abortive reflex laborist logic).

Therefore elections serve the purpose of re arranging the ministerial tables (conferring legitimacy on the regime), but do not, cannot, alter the substance - as no basis (anyway) for any such transformation with a pol/econ atomised population.

For precisely this reason India can be considered the first modern (cryptic) fascist state - with atomisation of the population (and superficial democratic trappings) - whereas in other smaller states, atomisation (used to be) enforced by military dictatorship (the threat of connexion with core radical bloc was more serious, though not serious enough to be effective).

This caused ruling class/imperialism to invest a large amount of their prestige in the dictator - which in turn (eg viz Philippines) determined a violent manner of departure. Yet (as with Chile etc) the essential pol/econ structures (from the dictatorship remaining intact. Wether the mode of removal be violent (residual of cold war) or electoral.

India due to its sheer size, was too big to play effectively the nat sec state card to justify this. Therefore adopted the form of feudal democracy(eg popular atomisation). Hence the neccessity (which Indira Gandhi recognised and which perplexed others) of the post emergency elections (to avoid a violent mode of departure - even though the principle pol/econ substance of the regime would anyway have remained intact) - and the absolute absence of any substantive change and continued stagnation (albeit with impressive peripheral developments).

The 1974 state of emergency, rather than representing any fundamental departure from established pol/econ developments, served to maintain feudal democracy in its existing form under extraordinary circumstances (oil crisis the exaggerated immediate pol/econ tensions of) - without fundamental change - as there were no global points of support to do otherwise.

Talk of rebellion (in 1974) meaningless without mobilising for a peasant war. But a peasant war needs either:

Viable global points of support from core radical bloc or:

(now) a rev reconstructionist program to be viable. Eg connexion with urban masses with global points of rev support.

Or else sinks back into localised, labor reflex forms of struggle. 1974 therefore called their bluff.

The peasant wars in both French/Russian revolts (when the old geo pol/econ/national centre of gravity broke down) were of decisive importance in breaking landlordist hegemony over the pol/econ. yet (as we have seen) the urban/rural alliance broke down due to reactionary egalitarian dynamic (only consolidated in the first place due to specific geo pol/econ conditions - eg in case of Russia via global laborism/violent dialogue with capitalism - that enabled room for bureaucratic socialist development within the hegemony of capitalism).

We shall now examine how the eclipse of the bi polar world has led to a creeping peasant war in India, its regime following a strategy of (partial) stabilisation through growth, & the (ultimately) limitations of this strategy.

The rise of Indian capitalism

& The break up of India

However we must deal now with an apparent paradox.

If as a modern atomised society - indeed truly the first atomised regime, preceding L. America, preceding Britain, how to account for the contempory rise of the BJP? A classical fascist formation, actually mobilising the masses?

Does this not invalidate our entire analysis of neo fascist development? Eg that it is aimed essentially at atomisation of the masses - not setting them in motion - as the 3rd Reich did (key point is that the critical process of mass disarmament was pre set via existing atomisation) - leastways until the global econ implosion?

Peculiarly the cause of the rise of classical fascist formations in India - is the same as the reason for the rise of cryptic fascism elsewhere. The rise of global finance beyond the control of the nation state.

& due to changed geo pol/econ circumstances the Dalits have become a factor again (which they weren't at the time of the Raj/ cold war) & (due to their tentative peasants revolt) have (to a degree) to be listened to.

IF they are brutally repressed, this will lead to an explosion of the nationalities question (the break up of India - no longer prevented by the bi polar construct). Therefore to a degree, they are able to hold this revolver to the head of the regime (yet without seizing a pan Indian/global rev pol/econ offensive); which seeks to placate them, up to a point, in an attempt to hold a centre of gravity together.

The effect of this has been to antagonise without destroying the feudal classes (previously content with their interests secured by cryptic fascist structures) - leading to the sponsorship of pogrom mongering (against Dalits/Muslims) by the core base of the regime. expressed in the rise of the classical open fascist BJP.

Furthermore, the collapse of the bipolar world (threat of proxy war formerly held India together) means stability through growth must pursued, which in turn undermines fuedal socialism, aiding:

Indian Capitalism

India's (post independance) socialist feudalism pol/econ was the product of its peculiar geo pol/econ position (as elaborated).

Starved of funds, the Indian regime actually prevented (through bureaucratic interference and outright prevention of development) , deliberately, the development of Indian capitalism - for the sake of an accommodation with landlordism.

WHY was Indian capitalism held back deliberately?

The historical dialectic was that feudal socialism (state retardation of industrial development - in the name of `socialism') was deployed in order to hold back the workers (in order to contain them within the feudal national pol/econ agenda/construct). Eg NO global connexion (between Indian and global masses) was possible (as contained within the national fuedalist - legitimated construct).

Indian feudalism used the urban masses therefore, as an internal point of support for the regime, rather than have them become (as they now potentially are) a (globally enforced) revolutionary force against the national regime.

But the breakdown of (globally re-inforced) Indian feudalism, led to de-regulation of Indian industry & its expansion.... which growth of threatens the regime with a number of explosive charges:

1) As India is a megastate, its own growth undermines Indian military plutocracy, as its own nat sec state becomes seen as the greater enemy...

2) The rural Q is explosive. A refusal (by Indian capitalism) to tolerate the costs of parasitic landlordism leads to the marginalisation in power of Indian capitalism.... feeding into the rise of BJP fascism (as the nat sec state attempts to stabilise elite rule through fundamentalism) and catalysing:

3) The explosive nationalities Q, hence the ratcheting up of the game of nuclear chicken with Pakistan to try & maintain control of the pol/econ agenda.

But we NOW consequently have an urban plebeian force, capable (NOT within the discredited Marxian forms - but rather the) on the basis of the new methods of revolutionary political warfare, of linking with the global movement, and providing a point of support for the ALL - India peasant war. (It is even possible for anti landlordist movement in Pakistan to spread to India as Indian landlordism, as we have seen is reduced to falling back on its own internal resources, no longer able to rely on cold war points of support to prevent breakup by seccessionist movements - enabling creation of a rev federation).

The absolute precondition for such a movement (as analysed in Chapter 1 Vol I) is that the Pakistani/ Indian movement be strategically underpinned by the global cyber army (especially via the Asian diaspora in Britain/ USA etc) via struggle for the common ownership of information,

giving the movement in India a decisive point of support to enable it to redefine itself as a state against its own nuclear landlordist plutocracy & USA led global military plutocracy mobilising (entire 3rd world) around the common ownership of info (the most effective way to redistribute from 1st world to 3rd world) & (WARTIME sacrifices for reconstruction) the global commonwealth confederation.

For India currently lacks the vision to justify itself as a state/ hold itself together. ONLY by leading the entire 3rd world for (redefining itself around) the common ownership of info (& global commonwealth confederation) can it survive, on a revolutionary expansionist basis.

Pakistan

As the 3 crooks waltz within landlordist India could not guarantee the security of the Muslim population (need for an enemy within focus) - ultimately led to the secession of `Pakistan' (under landlordist hegemony) and increasing fascization (`Islamisation') - as landlords sought to maintain power.

Ultimately disillusion in the regime led to electoral defeat of the Muslim league (by nominal radicals) - which was followed by a constitutional coup.

A rebellion in response would have required geo pol/econ points of support - otherwise descends into an `overturn, overturn, overturn' dialectic (no unity of insurgent purpose, therefore impotence paralleled that of Narayan) - no revolution as without global points of support (as countries far too big to be absorbed by core radical bloc - if they did it would undermine hegemony of capital, causing a clampdown in the west and the excuse to clampdown in the core radical bloc) , sinking back into stagnant localised laborist pol/econ agenda/inertia - stillborn revolt (- eg no delegitimisation and revolutionary reconstruction - which requires global points of support).

The only major difference compared with India, is that Pakistan could play the nat sec state card (allowing military dictatorship) but India - due to its' size - couldn't.

The coup catalysed underlying pol/econ tensions between East and West Pakistan. West Pakistan threw its weight around and Bangladeshi (East Pakistan) masses (under hegemony of landlords) - with INDIA as a temporary point of support (note the superpower tensions - which made other secessionist movements unviable)- rebelled, setting in train a reactionary egalitarian dynamic springing back to fascism (no global points of support - to sustain either core-radical socialism or quantum materialism).

Where no (even fraudulent) legitimacy exists, popular pressure is the only way to express grievances/change the faces of those in power. Yet no consolidation of a revolt is possible, without geo pol/econ points of support. It is possible to overturn the ministerial tables, but not consolidate a new centre of pol/econ gravity.

Mujib was a demagogue, yet how could it be otherwise? No centre of gravity either in Bangladesh or West Pakistan to consolidate a viable dynamic pol/econ program - so a split was inevitable due to the repression.

Only a viable program for revolutionary reconstruction could have consolidated East and West Pakistan, and this could only have come about via a peasant war - consolidated by urban, consolidated by global points of support.

Therefore machinations between 3 sets of landlords Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, led inexorably to break up (which without consolidation of a viable centre of pol/econ gravity - leads to reactionary egalitarianism and thence fascism).

This split between East and West Pakistan damaged the regime's credibility greatly - at least for a period.

This in turn (split the ruling class) led to an ephemeral radicalism, of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

This ephemeral manifestation of radicalism was markedly different from that in the core states (a permanently institutionalised form - at least for the duration of the long wave).

Bhutto and co exhausted themselves in power (failing after actually attempting to consolidate a viable centre of pol/econ gravity), for the aforementioned geo pol/econ (and landlordist) reasons(no global points of support to reconsolidate its pol/econ.

The only available `left' support tended to reactionary egalitarianism (which being no help at all) merely sought to displace one problem (landlordism) with another (reactionary egalitarianism).

Leading to the exhaustion of all points of support, leading to General Zia's coup....

For analysis of post cold war/ contempory Pakistan including analysis of the coup in Pakistan & what it represents, return to Chapter 1 Vol I:

Postcript 18/10/99 (The coup in Pakistan)

(SEE ALSO (in Chapter 1 Vol I) `A USA RAJ?' FOR AN ANALYSIS OF HOW THE ENEMY CAN COMBAT THIS THREAT & THE `NEUTRALISING DOOMSDAY SCENARIO' in same chapter/ Vol for how we can counter this threat in turn)

Latin America

Originally Spanish South American semi colonialism needed Spanish imperial support (or at any rate could not break away without mobilising masses from below, therefore this was not done (dialectic of `overturn, overturn, overturn' etc ruled this out of hand). S. American semi colonialism was buttressed by the global pol/econ (as then was), subordinate to Spain, in turn subordinate to British mercantilism.

The emergence of new points of geo pol/econ support (industrial England and France) led to a reconfiguration of colonialism in Spanish America - a re-orientation to industrial England as a semi colonial producer.

The masses were mobilised and deployed by both sides in the anti Spanish colonial struggle - but this didn't alter the essential character of the struggle, that this was essentially about a change from a semi colonial mercantile to a semi colonial landlordist based elite (hence the decline of the old key areas eg Mexico/Peru and rise of the Southern cone) - eg no point of pol/econ support for the consolidation of mass polity existed - such as increasingly existed in England/Europe.

Fratricidal rivalries between the incipient new oligarchs led to the fragmentation of Spanish South America into different states. Brazils' transition was more stable - as with Portugal under British dominion, Brazil seamlessly came increasingly under British hegemony.

Under the hegemony of global industrial capitalism, there eventually developed an evolving geo pol/econ room for manouevre enabling indigenous industrial capitalist development,; and even the incorporation of laborism within the system.

We meet the curious L. American phenomenon of TOP - down radicalism (as opposed toi especially European, bottom - up). The product of external potential/room for manouevre/development - as opposed to a reconfiguration of the core in response to:

Internal Rebellion.

Global scope to reconfigurate the core (such as the core powers possessed).

Because the previous rev struggle merely changed semi colonial forms, from Spanish mercantile to English industrial (as geo pol/econ potential opened up therefore, unlike core Europe, with its' incremental absorption of mass radicalism - in conjunction with core capitalism based on Euro fragmentation of power), there existed no ready made mass radicalism to force internal reconfiguration of what was essentially a semi colonial trading structure - based on primary production/dependency ( it is perhaps helpful to remember that only the birth of the core radical bloc breathed life into the ancient peasant wars in the Africa and elsewhere - enabling them to attain formal, if not economic independence).

Indeed laborism, as was, never impacted on this fundamental structure/characteristic of L. American semi colonial pol/econ - pre 1930's).

Hence to exploit the geo pol/econ opening fully, the phenomenon of the progressive dictator arose, creating a mass base out of seemingly nothing, but previously marginal elements and geo/pol/econ room for manouevre/development.

Thereof, a gradual/incremental constitutional absorption of the masses in certain L. American countries occurred. Either eclipsing the semi rev Bonapartist dynamic in relative importance (as in Chile) or in conjunction with progressive dictatorships - as a largely secondary partner.

Socialist Nation State dialectic

Was essentially a consumptive form of socialism based on geo pol/econ room for manouevre within global capitalist hegemony - based on primary products/exports to the core.

Could not go all the way as contained by (regional econ elite) and global capitalist hegemony, had no room to do so. However it was also neccessary to take some account of the masses, as global room for manouevre - meant that a progressive dictator could arise, Yrigoyen (Argentina) et al, that would construct such a power base - hence peculiar balance of forces.

This was so throughout L. America generally (with various configurations of forces depending on the available room for manouevre), the notable showcase being Uruguay, due to an exceptionally favorable geo pol/econ room for manouevre (between Argentina, Brazil and Britain) and the exhaustion of (the hegemony of) Uruguayan landlords in this specific context - leading to the closest thing the world has seen (so far) to a true socialist state (under Jose Batle).

Critically, there was no (especially pan L. American) significant socialist capital accumulation based on this dialectic.

Even operating within (as then) capitalist hegemony, to construct a popular base, it was necessary to offer masses jam today. HENCE indigenous industry trapped between rural oligarchs and laborism and the hegemony of core capitalism.

Because sacrifice weakens the masses unless they have seized military - institutional guarantees of their power - the only way (EVER) masses could (have) be won over to a reconstruction first program - is through global points of support - either of development or the stabilising force of rev political war - which thence insures no ruling elite is able to make of with the masses hard earned accumulation. The LACK of any such GLOBAL revolutionary potential (until the PRESENT period), caused any such dialectic to be abortive before even conceived.

To remind ourselves, in the case of India, if the masses awakened (by L. American or any other modes of radicalism), it would be clear that no external threat to popular interests greater than the internal/vertical threat - therefore required deliberate atomisation of the masses (& economic retardation) to stabilise the system. Note (as we have seen) the use of workers as a point of support for socialist feudalism.

Without an adequate external threat, no excuse for a permanent partial clampdown to stabilise power (a centre of industrial pol/econ gravity).

L. America was a semi colony, that is its pol/econ & trading patterns determined by core Euro/USA power - And (all) room for manouevre/ development (unlike India, did actually exist - without precipitating Jacobinism out of its' control, rendering it abortive before even begun - as L. America, unlike India, able to play the nat sec state card) - determined by this core.

The crash of 1929 - ended at least temporarily, the dialectics of consumptive socialism based on export based primary commodity production.

And led to the beginnings of import substitution - the potential for which was prepared by the temporary collapse of the old geo pol/econ points of support for old semi colonial development.

The limited national industrialisation of this period was based on the dissolution of the old global core productive relations, the INTERREGNUM before their core reconfiguration via the rev reformist processes of WWII

development was concentrated primarily in the southern cone - in countries large enough (or in the case of Uruguay, with large enough markets) to support industrialisation.

Why able to do this?

Because the old semi colonial geo pol/econ connexion temporarily broken down (undermining oligarchical control of the pol/econ).

And the preceeding wage fall of urban masses (as a consequence of the recession), served as an aid to development (by dampening down expectations) in L. America - Just as the long term fall in wages pre WWII in the core states had paved the way for the upturn (in a reconfigured global pol/econ) in Europe/USA.

This meant (at least temporarily) that potential for industrial development was not squeezed by demands for higher wages and oligarchs/imperialism.

By default therefore, (temporary) moves towards national industrial development (with heavy state involvement and diversification of economic structures) presented the only available course of action.

At least in the interregnum (before reconfiguration/reconsolidation of the global pol/econ), potential for industrial development was not squeezed by demands for higher wages and oligarchical imperialism.

After the war the more efficient highly capitalised core powers' industries (post WWII - L. American industry suffered from the starvation of available capital used to rebuild the core powers/buffer states - before this didn't matter as being unable to purchase L. American goods, unable to supply them consumer products - squeezing their production) took advantage of comparative lack of competitivity combined with a hunger for imports - among both oligarchs and masses. Who were unwilling or to be fair, unable to support a reconstruction first program without global points of support to stabilise the rev pol/econ (causing any such dialectic to be abortive before even conceived).

Why was socialist capital accumulation not possible without global points of support?

Because to re-iterate, sacrifice weakens the position of the masses, unless they have military institutional guarantees of their power (though such measures are not actually reactionary per se - if the oligarchies also weakened in the process - as in the period of import substitution - made possible by the 1929 crash and breakdown of the old trading patterns).

By logic this means an offensive rev pol foreign policy. The stabilising factor of global civil war - actively preventing the ruling forces from serving any interest other than that of socialist hegemony (until its' global consolidation - which in turn requires global potential (not as yet then existing).

Post WWII, the exhaustion of potential for import substitution as the global pol/econ core was successfully reconfigurated/reconsolidated - led to the re-peripheralisation of L. American pol/econ industry - against a (more) highly capitalised core.

The consequent breakdown of such potential for development as had existed in the interregnum, resulted in increasing tendancy to polarisation - between classical laborism manifest through (increasingly) European type patterns of struggle and/or semi rev bonapartist and compradors & imperialism (not wishing for competition).

National industry therefore (as we have seen) was squeezed between oligarchs/imperialism on the one hand and classical laborism on the other - with no potential for socialist hegemonic accumulation without (the aforementioned) global points of pol/econ support.

Cuba.

To safeguard national independence (room for manouevre of the Cuban state - The Cuban revolt of 1959-61 drew heavily on the heritage of the independence struggle against Spain/USA) it was neccessary (to secure a modicum of room for manouevre) to transfer to the core radical bloc (to free itself from USA hegemony) - which of course while allowing for a greater level of development than otherwise would have been possible (see Haiti, Dominican republic and the Caribbean generally languishing under the USA imperium), it meant principally, a mere exchange of tyrants.

This in turn (connexion with core radical bloc) polarised politics throughout L. America (This and crucially, the exhaustion of L. America's basis of independent development/room for manouevre).

As by and large, L. American states too big (and geographically distant) to be subordinate to USSR - puny Cuba's exceptionalism proving the rule.

It was inevitable that the core radical current could not capture decisively the masses (unwilling to prostrate themselves before the USSR and indigenous laborism - unlike core/W.Europe - was effectively squeezed by contracting national L. American capitalism, upon which laborism was based - and also squeezed by the core not wanting competition) and that therefore, without adequate (decisive) national and geo pol/econ points of support (for core radical current) and diminishing basis for (accommodating) national laborism (unlike W. Europe). The effect was merely to terrify the regime into clamping down - strengthening compradorism.

In both Argentina and Chile this defeat was manifest in bloody open conflict (after a period of hardening of laborist forces before destruction).

Defeat was the result of a failure to consolidate a viable rev pol/econ (reconstructionist) centre of pol/econ gravity (which as we have seen requires global points of pol/econ support, not then existing even in potential - and unlike puny Cuba, too big and independent to be incorporated into the core radical bloc). Leading to stagflationary pressures, exhaustion of limited rev bonapartist/ jacobin and even socialist nation state currents within these states, resulting in a complete breakdown of the centre of pol/econ gravity and the inertial re-establishment/ consolidation of the old oligarchical dialectics/imperialist connexion (especially aided by the murderous backing of the CIA - via Operation Condor etc).

The Argentinean and (especially) Chilean ruling classes could not contain the power of their working classes except through de-industrialisation (remarkable similarity in many respects to what has taken place in Britain - though the process here was smoothed/made possible by the oil boom) and re-subordination to imperialism.

To re-iterate, Brazilian oligarchs/landlords right up to the 1930's import substitution boom - an entrenched landlordism held back industry & the development of the working class especially as an independent force.

Due largely to geographical factors, the central power was weak - enabling the landlords to retain their hegemonic position.

Their position was only undermined with the interregnum (unlike India - which regime had no such scope and held back industry by starving it of funds - to maintain stable power of the landlords.

Brazil, as a semi colony, could no longer do this during the interregnum, as power of the oligarchs weakened by the 1929 crash - Which created a nationalist/industrial opening led by a progressive dictatorship (under Vargas)- mobilising workers for support (remember, L. American pol/econ unlike Indian, could be/was stabilised through the judicious deployment of the nat sec state card).

But with the (still remaining) hegemonic power of the rural over the urban in Brazil therefore, the post import substitution boom hardening of the Brazilian ultranationalist left (viz president Goulart etc) consequently led not to the trashing of the country, but (as working class not powerful enough to force the ruling elite to trash the country in order to hold onto power - as happened in Chile & Argentina and could easily be pushed aside - as with the deposing of Goulart and the weaker independent workers' organs) `Associated Development'.

A triumvirate of the armed forces (as an institution), the national economic elite and global finance/corporations.

To clarify, (with Brazil as with India) the very factor which previously undermined the industrialisation dialectic, the absence of a significant independent (or as in Argentina latently independent) labor movement, either forcing rev reforms (as in Europe/USA) or to squeeze the position of the ruling oligarchs - is the very factor which finally enabled Brazilian industry to thrive in the super nova of global finance hegemony - as the the rest of the world (and Brazil eventually with it) sinks into the abyss.

As the country was not trashed (to contain laborism) completely (yet) atomisation gave way to a resurgent laborism in the shape of Lula's Workers' Party - which however represents merely the ghost of laborism past, a last faint flare before the flame of classical laborism is extinguished completely.

Mexico

Peasant war as a consequence of the encroachment of Haciendados. Collapse of the Mexican centre of pol/econ gravity (post Porforio diaz) - resembled in certain respects the German peasant war.

The destabilisation (of Heurta's regime post Madero) and incapacity to consolidate a new overtly dependant centre of gravity, meant that USA opposed Heurta and tolerated/proposed that the constitutional niceties be observed - to legitimate a regime on its doorstep (control/stop spread of radical contagion).

Therefore curiously, because of its position bordering the USA, Mexico had to have a peculiar 3 - way balance between laborism & peasantry/ national elite/imperialists & compradors (as USA had no wish to see such upheavals on its' doorstep repeated ad infinitum).

Mexico's curious centre of gravity is a combination of the Euro - type fragmentation of power with colonialism (eg fear of provoking rebellion - and catching contagion through direct geo proximity). Effectively a historical `circle' like China.

(Contained) Rebellion manifested itself again vis Cardenas (land reform and oil).

USA could do nothing about it without fundamentally subverting its' own rev reform process - therefore compelled, kicking and screaming all the way to reconcile itself (however treacherously) to Cardenas & co (up of course, to a point - which Cardenas didn't overstep) - geo pol/econ bargaining with the core.

Unlike H. P. Long not actually part of the core therefore no assassination as not such a threat and could therefore be contained. Also to do so, to crush Cardenas current would clash with own rev reform current - because of geo proximity.

Mexico in the 1960's

Stagnation and implosion of the (old) centre of pol/econ gravity (such as we have seen elsewhere in L. America) led to an alliance between far left and right; around inchoate desires for `change'. With neither a consensus on what that change should be, or a viable centre of pol/econ gravity fixed.

(Crisis of 1968) - As with China (in 1989), Mexican capitalism/global finance (due to geo pol/econ proximity to USA) could not rule by overtly fascist dictatorship in its' own name; & needed the semi legitimate RPI to implement the increasingly pro speculator policies for it. But only after Echeveria's nominal leftism exhausted the lefts' logical position for it (to reconsolidate regimes' position/buy it neccessary time to manouevre), thence enabling the right to impose creeping control of global finance hegemony.

All the while (all) maintaining existing ideological structures/forms and justifications at the expense of ever increasing dependency of foreign capital to maintain the status quo.

The oil however staved of immediate crisis (eg source of credit/loans against).

Chiapas: Stand of in Mexico

(See `The Colonial Revolution' in Vol I Chapter 1)

Global finance hegemony: Fascism, finance, drugs and the USA

Critically (with the dictatorships consolidation facilitating increased subordination to the interests of imperialism (2/3 of all senior L. American officers were trained at `coup school' - USA Army's `School of the Americas'), the fall out from the oil crisis (petrodollars reloaned to the military fascist dictators - at low then sharply increased rates of interest - causing a debt servicing scam transferring the costs of the oil crisis and deeper profiteering, to L. America) led to the political/economic bankruptcy of the regime.

Taken (together) with the decline/collapse of core radical bloc and nat sec state justification (for military dictatorships existence) and the Nicaraguan revolution - in the context of these changed geo pol/econ circumstances - against a backdrop in which regimes increasingly lacked cold - war excuse to clamp down (the reverse effect of the Cuban revolt, consequently representing a feared challenge of the L. American people to wholly delegitimised forms of rule - Like Samoza's); the pol/econ crisis precipitated a change to legitimated forms of rule (so as to avoid presenting such an easy target as Samoza etc), in much of L. America. Even though the substance (pol/econ agenda & consequances) essentially indistinguishable from what went on before.

We can describe this change more properly as a geo pol/econ change from cold war based (ideologised) pol/econ security structures to specifically defined ministry of interior forces - lacking a convincing external threat (Engel's `armed bodies of men' - against the citizenry), more desperately requiring legitimated forms of tyranny to give them a semblance of legitimacy (see Russia & Britain for further example of this general evolution of the structures of repression).

The radically different strategic response was/is in direct response to radically different geo pol/econ context - though the essential (and at that more radically decomposing) substance is the same.

How do the drug barons factor in all this?

File under `T' for `Trashing the (political) economy' and general counter insurgency.

What couldn't be controlled, was/is (as we have seen) simply subjected to a scorched earth (political-) economic policy.

The toleration and indeed active fostering, by the CIA - particularly through the L. American military graduates of Fort Benning (Georgia - USA), of S. American drug barons vis counter insurgency. Mirroring their encouragement of the Italian Mafia and drug barony in the Golden triangle & Afghanistan, in alliance with Islamic fascists - who, originally aided by CIA/USA imperialism against 3rd world radicalism, conveniantly provide a post cold war scarecrow for the core pol/econ nat sec states' regime to justify its continued existence.- fits neatly into this general pol/econ pattern.

Only those who have learnt nothing whatever, of the war/finance skein of global capitalist development (as seen vis global finance hegemony, the elites marginalising themselves in power), can find this in any way surprising.

Finally, we have seen that post 1960's, labor in the USA had to be smashed (in order to), this thence made possible a (partial) Brazilian - type boom dialectic (based on super nova of global finance development) - which is but a pre-cursor to general global collapse - and does not impinge on the general speculatory evolution of the global finance system in the USA itself or worldwide.

See: Rise Of The South?

(in Chapter 1 Vol I)

on how 3rd world movements can link with Euro/ USA rev movement

SEE ALSO (in Chapter 1 Vol I) Postcript 22/10/99 THE NEW COLONIALISM for analysis on how the enemy

can combat this threat & our counter response

& ALSO the `NEUTRALISING

DOOMSDAY ' scenario, vis how the different measures the rev movement must take to counter the threat of nuclear blackmail against Euro & 3rd world rev movements respectively outlined.

USA Gun Culture & the Militias

General gun ownership was formerly based on frontier expansion.

It was only possible, on a stable basis, due to racialised division of the working class. And (as seen) the partial depoliticisation of white masses except:

Utopianism of John Brown (as we have seen, contained within the hegemony of classical rationalism, within the hegemony of capitalism - as a sub quantum anti slavery/vestigial colonialist component). And:

Revolutionary Bonapartism of H P Long, contained within the hegemony of finance. Murder of H P Long combined with rev reforms laid basis for redevelopment (combined with rev reformist reconfiguration of geo pol/econ post WWII) - on basis of social differentiation/hegemony of matter & depoliticisation of masses.

Otherwise (as seen) Black radicalism has been the principle factor in rev politics - until present latent criticality (brought about by the exhaustion of potential for automatic development). In certain regards, the crude radicalism of the militias (in spite of their rough hewn character), which we shall now examine, represents a guide to this latent criticality.

The USA militias began as a reactionary survivalist current, very much the product of the cold war.

Then with loss of the cold war focus, turned on the enemy above; as become clear that this was the true enemy (with collapse of the USSR).

Due to geographic reasons (the `head for the hills' current - and ironically past racial divisions, which had consequently enabled white and other masses to have arms), constituted a kind of para state dialectic in defiance of the USA regime.

The militias are commonly regarded (mistakenly) as fascist. But unlike for example, Strasserism (Nazi SA - were based on military attacks on laborism), the militias are a para state current beholden to no-one. Yet unable to seize the offensive (& martial sufficient forces on basis of automatic/reflex modes of struggle) without the new martyr propelled mode of warfare.

This means consequently, the militias fell under the influence of some completely rotten elements.

Eg as racialised division of the working class aided generalised gun ownership, it was not only these peculiarly American far left fragments which were pro gun.

The pro gun movement encompassed a variety of (hegemonic) elements (remember the militias couldn't seize the offensive) from libertarian conservatives, to NRA (National rifle Association) - doing a nice trade in selling arms to the people - which however (via the ayatollahs of air, talk radio hosts) pursued the general pol/econ agenda of (a fraction of) the enemy.

When Clinton attacked gun ownership, he also antagonised these old cold war ideologues/construct, which had previously enabled the right to bear arms to be contained within a stable pol/econ construct of the regime. With the collapse of core radicalism, the remnants of this ideology ceased to be indispensable to the regime, and gun control ceased to be as unthinkable as it had been previously & indeed was/is increasingly welcomed by ministry of interior forces - even though opposed by others in the regime. A stance remember that was originally possible/the product of the old racialised class division of the USA masses.

That Clinton sought to/has shifted away from (played out) cold war ideology (with a no less monstrously inflated military budget), alters not one jot the character of the regime - even in reformist terms. It remains precisely the same old (worsening) shit - with a politico ideological construct more suited to the post cold war hegemony of global finance.

Hence these left fragments (spoiling for a fight, but unable - without the new theory - to initiate it/seize the offensive) fell under the sway of their `friends'. United by a common fear (albeit for totally different reasons) of gun control. The militias for democracy, elements of the enemy, for the profitable trade to the people. -

And inevitably UNTIL EURO REV connexions are established which enable USA rev dems to redefine the USA on the basis of a (global reconstructionist) global commonwealth confederal identity (as outlined in Vol I Chapter 1 - though can/ should also buttress the Euro rev movement via the cyber army before then).... the militias danced like monkeys on sticks - repelling many revolutionary inclined elements that otherwise are quite winnable.

Hence the debacle over the Waco atrocity.

There was nothing particularly remarkable in principle about this act of government mass murder (compared with the role of the drug cartels friend - the CIA) and such therefore shouldn't be allowed to dictate the overall military political agenda of the militias.

....Which (with said EURO rev connexions) should (eg to be successful) be orientated towards a new `Harpers' Ferry' (against the Klan/ similar fascist currents) connected to a generalised rev pol campaign to delegitimise the regime and connected with a rev reconstructionist rev pol/econ program.

But, as was not able to determine agenda (lacking thence said Euro rev connexions & consequantly therefore) lacking in the framework to seize the military political offensive, the militias fell under the sway of the right.

The Waco massacre therefore, effectively served (wether this was deliberately intended or merely incidental) the function (for the anti gun fraction of the enemy) of dictating the military political ground on which the militias fought. (it should be seen in the context of the traditional anti fortress policy of the state - see similar action against the Black anarchist organ MOVE - whose base was subjected to aerial bombardment).

(A motivating fear for the regime (for carrying out the Waco/ Oklahoma atrocities) would be that the militias while their thinking certainly was/is rough hewn/ muddled, would increasingly evolve/ be inclined to an alliance with revolutionary blacks/ hispanics, presenting a serious revolutionary challenge to the regime).

This served to make them look as unfavorable as possible in the eyes of the wider people - getting them to fight on an extremely unpopular agenda (rather than determine for themselves a more favorable agenda on which to fight). This should not have been allowed to determine their agenda - but, as unable to detonate their own military pol/econ agenda (as we have seen ), it was inevitable that they would take the bait and accept battle on the enemy's terms.

Hence the road to Oklahoma was paved by the militias own hair brained campaigning (instead of targeting the enemy's legitimacy/battle on its own terms), with an eye to their `friends' on the right of the anti gun control movement.

Hence having thus been drawn, after Waco, the militias propaganda prepared the way for Oklahoma.

Eg if there was no such (semi) popular reaction after the Waco holocaust (from heterogenous left/right currents), then Oklahoma - which could well be USA's version of the Bologna bombing (carried out by GLADIO operatives, a fascist terrorist network in Europe set up & aided by the CIA. A regime capable of aiding such terror in Europe and worldwide to preserve it interests is more than capable of Oklahoma), would not have been effective as a means to cauterize the militia threat.

(NB* Oklahoma has certainly demoralised the militia movement/ led to a haemorraghing of leftist elements in particular - leading to a partial re-alignment towards the right within the movement meaning it is less of a rev threat for the enemy than otherwise would have been.... though to re-iterate, it was a combination of militias own hairbrained propaganda prior to oklahoma combined/ the result of the fact that militias, before Euro rev movement launched have no chance to take the seize the military political initiative - as with the Mexican movement, USA cadres should martial their forces by combining defence of gun ownership with struggle for the common ownership of info via the Cyber Army....)

Instead of systematically targeting the military plutocratic regime for its fundamental criminality, its military plutocratic crimes (in fact because they were not doing this before), Waco (vis resistance to gun control) became (by default) the centre of gravity for militia propaganda/ campaigning.

But:

Waco did not appear initially as clear cut, (the) act of govt mass murder that it was. It was successfully made to appear initially as an attempt by a dangerous bunch of possibly Jim Jones type religous nutters, to trigger an eschtalogical apocalypse - triggering a grotesque over reaction. (it is possible that having their worst fears confirmed by the savage assault actually stabilised the collective psychology of the Branch Davidians around its leader, not only preventing a Jim Jones type attempt to take the group with him, but giving rise to the remarkable restraint shown in the face of the murderous onslaught - which had to follow through to its logical conclusion in order to preserve its fictional legitimacy - by incinerating the living evidence)

Despite this act of govt mass murder, the general legitimacy of the regime remained intact in the eyes of the wider masses. Eg without a rev pol campaign to delegitimise the regime combined with a rev pol/econ (reconstructionist/ pan commonwealth) program, mobilising the masses politically against the regime (preparing the way for its military overthrow, when the army won over/ neutralised) - held together by a campaign to free anti KKK POWs; the regimes legitimacy by default remained intact.

(please refer back as neccessary to chapter 1 Vol I vis neccessary European geo strategic re-inforcement of the USA rev campaign)

Because they did not seize the rev pol offensive as outlined above, forcing the regime to fight on ground of their choosing, the militias by default ended up being dragged into fighting on an agenda favorable to that of the regime - as this massacre called into question their whole sense of purpose. Eg if they couldn't attack the regime for its inate military plutocratic criminality (vis the new rev theory), by way of a reflex they felt compelled to respond to Waco.

Catastrophically, they responded with a demagogic response (vis gun control & Waco) full of sound & fury, but totally lacking in a viable military political framework for revolutionary action (while gun control should be opposed at all costs, this opposition must be linked to a general rev pol offensive - including preperations for such via cyber army).

This response, which they shared with sections of the old cold war right (as opposed to the post cold war `ministry of interior' right of Clinton et al), as we shall see later provided the perfect political backdrop for the Oklahoma bombing (which correspondingly totally alienated the wider citizenry from the militias - to the benefit of the regime)...

A situation which given the militias historical origins (& still a heterogenous tendancy) re-inforced suspicions/ regime propaganda about them being `fascist' (all to the advantage of genuine fascists in the party of J. Edgar Hoover) in the eyes of the wider citizenry.

The root fundamental cause of this catastrophe is that the militias had not/ have not (yet- at the time of writing) grasped the imperative of a pan commonwealth solution (`redemption Through Sacrifice') framework of global reconstruction (to avoid oblivion/ choking on military plutocratic nat sec states' barbed wire) - only when they grasp this imperative will they be able to deploy the methods of the new rev pol warfare.

(please refer back as neccessary to chapter 1 Vol I vis neccessary European geo strategic re-inforcement of the USA rev campaign) Eg they sense as a gut reaction, instinctively & correctly, that a regime (especially with the murderous record of the USA regime worldwide & against the USA blacks) wishing to attain & consolidate a monopoly of force over its people has evil intent towards them. Their instinct is to oppose this.

But they have yet to face fully the stark choice that confronts them. Either be crushed or seize control of the military pol/econ agenda, seize power and implement a program of sacrifices for pan commonwealth global reconstruction. For either the American people shall endure sacrifices for reconstruction; or alternatively oblivion at the hands of a Nero-esque class (as the economy goes into terminal meltdown as a consequance of the untrammelled hegemony of speculative finance over industry & labor), that in its insane desperation to retain control of the pol/econ agenda, to cling to power, shall tip the world over into the abyss of nuclear, biological & chemical warlordism.

(As) the militias are frequently (and mistakenly) viewed as being fascist (militia propaganda prior to Oklahoma further heightened confusion), this has led to some on the `left' to call for the state to crush them; born of an historical illiteracy concerning the role of the state in the USA.

This stupidity (not to say cowardice, expecting the state to fight our battles for us) is based largely on the mythology of, an historical illiteracy concerning the dialectic of, Abraham Lincoln (fostered by Karl Marx - he who so seriously excoriated the German bourgeoisie in 1848 for daning to overthrow the princes/nobility in order to pave the way for its' own overthrow) - whose statue sits in the armchair rightfully belonging to John Brown - whose assault on the Harpers' Ferry arsenal (in southern territory) set up the current which forced Lincoln, his pol/econ current (on pain of losing control of the agenda), kicking and screaming, to wage war on the confederacy.

The last similar act (of progressive intervention by the state) was courtesy of Martin Luther King, who acknowledged that fear of Northern Black radicals, similarly forced the hand of the state (eg the alternative option was ALL OUT war with the white working class and this was a non starter - essentially state policy was about the strategic management of racism in order to keep the masses divided, while simaltaneously avoiding a totalised showdown, insofar as workers interests could be accommodated within the hegemony of the regime, to the benefit of the regime).

There exists no such potential for violent dialogue with the regime anymore, nothing remains but to crush in toto the party of J. Edgar Hoover.

The reason for some of the militias bizarre, indeed patently ludicrous statements, to the effect that the UN is trying to take over the USA, is not symptomatic of a fascistic notion of say a `Zionist Conspiracy' (such as with fascists).

Rather it is symptomatic of a movement that is (healthily) spoiling for a fight with the regime, yet (unhealthily) cannot get a handle on (to delegitimise) the enemy (without the new methods of rev pol warfare), so seeks to contrive an occuppationist (delegitimising) accusation in order to seek a pretext for rev civil war (rather than taking the political offensive with a Harpers' Ferry type raid as outlined in S.O.F.). Which alas, only makes them look ridiculous and put of many potential allies.

A proper analysis of the USA's pol/econ enslavement to global finance only really comes with a proper and viable military political strategy to win power.

But the Militias to their credit, have the will to fight. And when armed with (the) viable military political strategy/framework (seeing it up and running elsewhere - & via cyber army helping it to prepare) the best will ditch their ludicrous characteristics (having no use for them, to keep their spirits up - possessing something better) and prove useful allies.

The continuing failure (post crash) to recognise that massive econ sacrifices are required for global reconstruction, means that radical movement fails to (has no program capable of consolidating a viable centre of pol/econ gravity... & would lead to atrocities from the govt being matched by counter atrocities (like Mcveigh's), until all is ashes...

....the only salvation is to embrace econ (as well as military) sacrifice, using apocalyptic threats of global military pol/econ oblivion to drive the rev reconstructionist program forward/ establish rev consensus ....underpinned by Euro/ 3rd world points of political support.

Armageddon

Though (as noted, see Vol I Chapter 1) there IS a threat that elements of the militias may line up behind a Caesarist drive to demolish the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem & rebuild the Temple, leading to WWIII, BUT, to re-iterate, the primary target/ orientation MUST be the Caesarist state itself & thence any that protect it.

An Evil Flowering

(Holocaust as a military pol/econ process

growing out of military plutocracy)

To characterise the slaughter of the 6 million Jews as unique is to miss completely the whole point of the Holocaust as a military plo/econ process intrinsic to military plutocracy; that is, why it took place.

That in order to cling to power for a few years, months, days or even minutes more, the relentless machine of military plutocracy, of the mechanics/ nexus of finance & war reigning supreme as laws unto themselves over/ enslaving the consciousness of humanity (even those that profess to `resist' it, within the limits of the laws, I nearly said sheep pens, set down by same), is compelled to lay waste to/ raze to the ground, whatever it cannot use on the basis of its hegemony, in order to maintain its general control.

As to have made good use of the Jews (as citizens) would have meant throwing away the card of `the enemy within' which could not be afforded such a regime (that could only acquire temporary stabilisation on the basis of crushing all dissent/ laborism) set on (acquiring a kind of stable instability via) military expansion/ war, the Jewish Holocaust was merely the extreme logical (ideological) culmination of a policy neccessary to the survival of the regime in Germany.

What about the USA/ USSR Q?

As to have crushed the USSR would have meant crushing domestic laborism, when USA led global capitalism still had the capacity to reconfigurate itself & thus absorb laborism under its hegemony, to the benefit of (USA led) military plutocracy, there was no decisive institutional impetus to pursue this goal unto oblivion (which is what would have been required).

Even though many areas of the world have been subjected to USA's military &/ or pol/econ scorched earth policy - when they have proved of no use economically OR geo strategically & therefore troublesome to its imperium.

But the groundwork for the general Holocaust (the destruction of ALL humanity) took place with the crushing of USA Blacks and the switch into credit military expansionism, most particularly with the Reaganite war boom. The USA catalysed the destruction of the USSR (by triggering its bankruptcy with its military war boom - which along with the Vietnam war consolidated the position of the parasitic nat sec state in the USSR - eg its decisive pretext to cling to & entrench power until its consequant implosion), because it could (as we have seen) no longer maintain stable control over its own people, except through a war/ speculative boom - an economic Holocaust of the world economy. Which partial disillusion in, has led in turn to the nugatory interegnum (vacuum) of Clinton (which we shall examine shortly).

But oblivion was not immediate in USA, precisely because as the victorious world empire (over USSR) it lacked the neccessary geo political pretext to launch such an adventure (which the Nazis possessed vis USSR & USA/ Britains' empire etc).

Therefore in the post Reagan/ Bush USA, the need for legitimacy could not be got round simply by engaging in immediate war/ military expansionism (allowing fear of a revanchist enemy to act as an unstable stabilising factor vis internal pol/econ). Consequantly, it is ONLY when the global pol/econ collapses completely, and IF (revolt is unsuccessful) a Caesarian power can be consolidated, that war will be used as a means to hang onto control of the pol/econ agenda, if only for a few minutes more...

The Fall Of Babylon

To speak of the death of liberalism seems strange bearing in mind the ferocious anti Clinton hysteria whipped up by the old cold war right - which Gore Vidal traces to Clinton's healthcare program (scuppered by finance/corporate USA).

Hence we must account for how/ why such an apparently radical idea (that Americans should get something useful for their tax dollars - instead of nukes) was pushed - even if later dropped under sustained pressure, how this fits our claim concerning the death of liberalism (meaning no institutional popular power base seeing the govt as the gaurdian of their interests - acting as a stabilising bulwark against revolution and total reaction).

The Clintons' heathcare program was in essence the residual radicalism of Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign - which was based on an institutional alliance of (now) poorer whites (due to the fall out of the regimes' war, credit, speculaitve expansionism) & blacks.

We can see in Jesse Jackson a cadaverous parody of H. P. Long - the anti landlordist King Arthur of the deep south - whose uncompromising revolutionary threat shocked northern finance into accepting reform of the system under FDR leadership.

For there be no potential whatever for building/ consolidating a radical power base anywhere in the USA (acting as a stimulus to liberal reform even as the movement itself is crushed - eg as with murder of H. P. Long), without engaging the whole enemy in the USA in an immediate and totalised revolutionary political confrontation. This is because the USA state, in the face of global finance hegemony, is no longer strong enough to reform itself , by itself, in response to radical shock.

Hence as an institutionalised radcialism (as was H. P. Long's, but H. P. Long had scope to build an independant power base in Louisiana/ deep south - effectively a revolutionary Bonaparte, standing between the classes, but strengthening the hand of civil society against landlordism/ - becoming a general attack on USA finance to consolidate the revolutionary anti landlordist struggle in the deep south - but precisly because of this, easy to pick of as so leader dependant - & USA financiers regime still strong enough to carry out rev reform and reconsolidate) there was nought left for Jesse Jackson to do but ultimately capitulate to Clinton (rather than build an aggressive independant revolutionary movement - as H. P. Long did, never mind implement the new model revolutionary theory) & sickeningly toady to Farrakhan to try to preserve a degenerating position amongst blacks.

Hence the loss of the cold war focus has led to trousergate - even though Clinton has given the corp jackals ever more & more ground. The `Whore of Babylon' (of regime ideology) is being devoured by her own pimps & clients.

Regime ideology (its fraudulent `moral' construct) was formerly stabilised by external cold war focus - without this focus, and, without the ability of the regime (under the hegemony of global finance) to any longer accommodate reform/ indeed imperative to slash & burn politcal economics, ALL establishment politics lacks even the appearance of meaning, lacks even the pretext for existence (even though it has not yet, at the time of writing, been actively delegitimised by a rev pol campaign). Eg their own old dictator, Saddam Hussein & Islamic fundamentalism (their old ally against 3rd world radicalism) is a pisspoor substitute for the USSR/ cold war; & they are all now compelled by the ancien regime classes to wreak havoc on labor, welfare etc.

What do they now exist for? When a deranged nexus/ cabal of Witchfinder Generals (such as have always existed) plot their palace coup, what reason/ excuse do they now have for restraint? Not (any longer) `national security', not the need for accommadating interests they feel hostile to but must permit for consensus (for labor being inexorably trashed) sake.

What has changed is that the old mechanisms of partial restraint have completely rusted away - under the continuing hegemony of the military plutocracy, - in the era of global finance hegemony - so that now, the raw sewage is bursting through the dam walls, with the connivance of (however reluctant or enthusiastic) of the political elite.

As the Wars of the Roses heralded (via the exhaustion of the English aristocracy) the rise of the bourgeois state, the `Wars of the Trousers' represent the twilight Bosworth of the bourgeoisie.

Comparing the assassination of JFK

with the contempory assassination

of the presidency per se

The assassination of JFK was the result of geo politics/ revolt.

Eg post Cuban debacle, `excess' reactionary elements burned themselves out with the assassination of JFK.

In the case of JFK, the ultras (the JFK sponsored Cuban fascists, outraged at the refusal to go all the way over Cuba, and Mafiosi; - together with enraged southern fascist currents) could be tied up by a cold war core elite taking over control/responsibility (for the assassination) and blaming it on core radicals (at home and abroad).

To illustrate this process of ideological/institutional cauterisation , in the case of JFK, we can reconcile the central thrusts of both Noam Chomsky's `Rethinking Camelot' (which points out that in every pol/econ respect, LBJ was less reactionary than JFK, that there was no conspiracy against Kennedy because of any institutional radicalism on his part, no evidence whatever to suggest he intended to pull out of Vietnam - indeed LBJ was far from committed early on, to escalation, as you would expect if the assassination was a `coup' to guarantee this) and attorney Jim Garrisons' work (`On the Trail of the Assassins') - which demonstrates the role of the secret state before, during and after the act.

Eg there was going to be an attempt by JFK's own creatures (outraged at `betrayal' over Cuba) anyway. And all the shit would have become visible, if the secret state did not take over control of the operation and (where neccessary) cauterise some of their own incriminating jackals, so tying up the loose ends at all levels.

(A sobering fact that reflects as shabbily on the USA's own version of Britain's Diana cult, as it does on the regime itself).

So around this Q, a clear systemic (yet shifting position could eventually be consolidated through the political cauterisation by the removal of JFK.

Beginning with the Great Society program - which eclipsed by consequance of Vietnam (itself an imperative due to internal black radicalism) - led to the shift to military, credit, specualtive expansionism.

Which has led to contempory internal pol/econ decomposition. And as this politcal assassination of the president, is the result of internal pol/econ decomposition, it equates to the liquidation of the presidency per se.

Clinton's colorless nugatory tyranny represents a vacuum (eg unlike say FDR/LBJ, there is no popular constituency that sees him in any respect as the Guardian, however stingily, of its interests. So there is no threat of a counter reaction to the reaction, to restrain the frenzy), which the old cold war elements are incapable of filling.

Why?

No nat sec state threat, therefore no excuse to justify its ideology - though there be an attempt to fabricate such an excuse out of its old Islamic fascist allies which it backed against 3rd world radicals. The classical fascist trend (in the USA) WILL be cut across by the break up of the USA (though as we shall seen in vol I Chapter 1 - this in turn will be cut across by global collapse and the spectre of a USA Caesarism - as outlined earlier in Chapter 1). The stale and long term ineffectual (though extremely dangerous) attempt to hold things together with `The War Of Clintons' Pecker', will afford us all an opportunity to view this reality more clearly.

This is the institutional/ surface manifestation of the destruction of the USA central power which the rise of global finance barony beyond the power of anyone state has led to. Which (linear) logic (via the disolution of central provision of welfare, leading to the disolution of welfare per se - leads to massive internal migration as people go where the work is and blocks on this migration erected by the richer parts) is leading to the break up of the USA; though (should the revolution fail to seize power before then) massive rioting as a result of the global econ implosion/ crash of the speculative boom, will lead to the army stepping in & a Caesarist figure taking power...
The Powder Kegs:
Israel & S. Africa

We have already covered the main battleplan in Chapter 1 Vol I.

The main arena of combat is Europe, USA & Russia (as well as Central Europe & Kurdistan).

To avoid unneccessary repitition, we shall cover only those parts not already covoered, that while of significance (& may well move from being secondary/ tertiary Qs to Qs of primary significance) are essentially peripheral to the main arena of combat.

The Jewish Taleban & the self fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon

To crush the Palestinian Intifada meant waging the settler war as a civil war within Israeli society.

Before state against state conflicts - were buttressed by decidedly unattractive Arab regimes in a cold war context - solidifying Israels response, and that more or less of world Jewry.

But now, Israeli society is not so solidified, as a settler war from below (without significant EXTERNAL cold war points of support for the palestinians, to justify/solidify such a cold war type response from the Israeli people) promulgates the contempory anti war dialectic and fragmentation within the Israeli camp.

While the USA remains complicit in/underwrites whatever Israel does (as traditionally serves USA interests in the region), the lack of stomach for fratricidal strife - has caused a split between liberal and orthodox (war party) Jews, `from below' - (a frontiersman, ultimately warlordist dialectic - in many respects similar to Islamic 3rd world variant, fascism).

Ever increasingly it gathers force under its own momentum - a slide into all out conflagaration. Simply liberal Jewry (without any significant geo pol/econ point of support - to enforce a settlement) cannot restrain this process. And becomes uncoupled from a virulent (when wins power - nuclear armed) Jewish Taleban, seizing power from below - leading to a self fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon (These 3rd world type fascists are more dangerous than the ruling cliques - as they will be less amenable to rational counter threats than the core enemy, wishing to bring Armageddon, though with the global econ implosion/ rise of USA Caesarism a similiar tendancy within USA society, as noted in the `Armageddon' section in Vol I Chapter 1, will ally itself to mad fascists seeking to bring about the apocalypse by demolishing the Dome of the Rock & building the temple).

The Israeli regime cannot crush this settler dialectic without becoming properly democratic and therefore thoroughly useless to (& consequantly abandoned by) USA imperialism (& USA imperialism must follow its client state all the way to hell - as it cannot possibly promote democracy in the region - so inimical to its interests).

Therefore in the abscence of a rev pol/econ framework for a pan Mid east solution, Israel is compelled to slide, if only by default, into carrying out this policy (with marginal changes in strategic variation rfom time to time). Nothing (in the current order) can stop it and nothing can contain it within the old decayed cold war boundaries (and nothing within the old boundaries can contain the Islamic fascist response).

Israel therefore MUST have a viable centre of (revolutionary) geo pol/econ gravity, which enables it to crush its own Taleban - without being fatally marginalised.

The corrollary of this problem is that the Arab nat sec states use the excuse of israeli aggression to justify their existence (and repression within their own borders - `national security').

In turn therefore they act as an aid to division and fratricidal strife, enabling USA imperialism to maintain control of the region.

Eg USA imperialism is NOT (contrary to some strands of belief) hated for its support of Israel, but because they are a load of greedy, grasping gangsters out to plunder the Mid East of resources and finance (more so in concert with openly proxy regimes' such as in Saudi Arabia).

They would be hated with or without the expansionist policy of Israel, which merely happens to a conveniant aid to (regional) fratricidal strife (& Arab nat sec state justification) making the (in any case vastly unpopular) policy of USA imperial plunder more effective.

(which of course makes Israel hated in the region)

The nat sec states of the so called Arab nationalist regimes (whose corrupt and plundering policies - greatly strengthened by the proximity of the Isralei expansionsit threat - functioning as the USA's destabilising proxy) acts in turn as an aid to USA imperialist policy/interests (these regimes using the nat sec state fear - as a device to keep their peoples in check)

This is not so very different from the way the British governed their colonies, playing of one tribe/ethnic grouping against another - except writ large, and accompanied not by (cruder) talk of the benefits of the `civilising' role of imperialism - but more respectable phraseology (which all established politicians are compelled to mouth as if they seriously believe it), about protecting `freedom' and (wait for it) `democracy' - worldwide.

The continuing Gulf crisis is in effect a mere Punch & Judy show.

Saddam Hussein (their creation), is (probably) the best possible leader of Iraq USA imperialism can get/hope for.

An openly compradorist leader would be (have been?) too much of a target for a rebellious people. Threatening revolt, democracy and worst of all, for imperialism, the establishment of Kurdistan, threatening to consolidate the establishment of a radical Mid East federation.

Therefore it makes sense to have this pseudo nationalist remain in power - and fear of an open proxy keeps him there. It also helps the USA nat sec state keep onto its powers (post cold war) - with the threat of a bogey of their own making.

(postcript 6/6/99)

Though the expansion of Turkey into Iraqi occupied Kurdistan may provide a superior option for imperialism, vis the consolidation of its interests.

The Balkan indirect oil war (which we examined in Chapter 1 Vol I) which was fought essentially to intimidate Greece into accepting the bondage of Kurdistan (and NOT engage in revanchist annexation of Turkish Northern Cyprus in revenge for the abduction of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan - which would have destabilised the whole region/ world), has been very successful in this regard (if not its completely fictitious humanitarian cover); and gives imperialism a whole range of options from the stable tried & tested model (outlined above) to Turkish expansion (as a USA imperial proxy) in the region.

(Of course no respectable politician will acknowledge this, for this means confronting the fact that we are governed by a mafia - and logically the dread Q - `And WHAT are YOU going to DO about it?!')

They key to the whole Mid East Q is Kurdistan.

The birth of Federated socialist Commonwealth of Central Europe (including European eg non Kurdish Turkey) shall in turn lead to the creation of a Free Kurdistan, the Poland of the middle East - which in turn will lay the basis for the smashing of every other tyranny in the region - Iran, Iraq, Syria - giving a strong point of support for the revolution in Israel; breaking imperialist hegemony in the region.

In turn all leads back to the consolidation of the Socialist Commonwealth in Western Europe (with victory in the Germanic states) to provide the levers of support for the Commonwealth unification/rev reconstruction of the Balkans. This in turn will open up (provide the levers/pol/econ points of support for) the whole Mid East to the revolutionary offensive (rev pol/econ program - which will be almost impossible to do without such direct operational core pol/econ points of support in the west) - in turn providing a point of support for Israel to break from dependancy on USA imperialism, and smash its own cancerous Taleban.

The establishment of Kurdistan itself be merely a transitional first step towards a Commonwealth of the Mid East (of its regions), into which Israel can be integrated.

The integration of Israel (which due to its dependancy on the USA, currently functions as its destabilising proxy) shall herald the abandonment of all residual nation state elements in the Mid East, which shall find their transitional revolutionary democratic gaurentor in free Kurdistan - as there be no more proxy/imperial threat.

This be analogous to the way that Germanys' subsumation into the Euro commonwealth heralds the abandonment of the transitional stockade rev dem nation state elsewhere in Europe, in favor of the Commonwealth of the regions.

S. Africa

The post WWII rise of the National party was effectively the Boer war re-visited as imperialism (of neccessity geo strategically) changed form, operating through domestic transmitting mechanisms/forces.

For the sake of mutual interest, global finance hegemony accepted this (abeit unavoidably) embarrassing form - based on an alliance of imperialism, national capital buttressed on a mass base of (minority privileged) white workers.

But the very expansion of racial capitalism neccessarily led in turn to a corresponding increase in power of power/wages of the black masses. Which in turn meant that SA capitalism could only expand by (trying to) absorb them piecemeal into the system. Which however, because it so totally lacked legitimacy produced a contradictory dialectic of (laborist/fragmentory) resistance to the regime. Which (even though as we shall examine later couldn't actually seize power nevertheless) undermined all such efforts at piecemeal incorporation into racial capitalist regime.

This be the opposite of core USA military plutocracy (which we have examined in WWII) where white hegemony was retained due to greater historical/material weight & black petit bourgeoisie absorbed as internal compradors.

This resistance, while failing/unable (lacking geo pol/econ rev points of support in the core states) to push a reconstructionist programme to seize power, nevertheless undermined/caused racial capitalism to collapse in on itself - to the extent that foreign capital (in alliance with sections of doomestic capital) sought to push for a legitimated transfer of power - to preserve capitalism per se. As racial capitalism was no longer able to deliver the profits, capitalism (global & domestic) played a double game, supporting the apartheid regime/security apparatus against rev militants, while trying to force the hand of the bitter enders to accept such a regime. So that through the repression of partial uprisings of '84 - '86, the apartheid state:

Partially broke the resistance - preventing the immediate threat of autonomous control of the process from below.

Played itself out - which meant:

Both the above, strengthened the hand of the foreign aided ANC exile heirarchy over the masses & as a neccessary gaurentor of capitalism (in relation to the old apartheid state)

Furthermore the decline & fall of the USSR (which as we have seen was in no small part related to global capitalisms steady decline post Vietnam), further strengthened the hand of global capital in relation to the ANC.

It is obvious why the (pol/econ) regime sought out a settlement, to confer (post apartheid) legitimacy on itself.

It is less obvious (at first) to understand why Mandela & co gave/conceeded to the enemy effectively everything they already possessed - (& now do the old regimes job for it - better than it dared hope).

Simply the very process of dialogue conferred legitimacy on the pol/econ regime.

Eg it presented the ANC leadership (which possessed in turn, legitimacy in the masses eyes) with a dilema. Either:

Discuss the (global) enemy's agenda for transition - addressing themselves to the hegemony of global finance Or:

Seek to propose an alternative hegemony and prepare for all out civil war (all options between the 2 polar options - as in Britain/world generally, had/have all the disadvantages - but none of the advantages viability of each option).

As we have seen (throughout S.O.F.), revolution requires a global operational connexion and global re-inforcement of the rev pol/econ program (a potential only just ripened). Revolution is not possible without operational support in the key (old) core countries.

Forced therefore to effectively capitulate in the establishment of a post apartheid (pol/econ) criminal continuim.

It will only be the consequant popular outrage at this criminal continuim which will create the national basis for (eg WITHOUT global rev pol/econ connexion) introversion.

Only when the current leadership loses all legitimacy and a seismic shift, probably within existing power structures, mobilises (as a power base) the economically disenfranchised (for if the state doesn't incorporate them, they will threaten the state - therefore inevitable it will if it has to), sets up a continuous Jacobin type process.

Without a conslolidated rev hegemony/reconstructionist settlement - chaos can only be met with further (and therefore racialised) radicalisation - meaning all- out conflagaration.

S. Africa is therefore the Q we are all nervous about. But (few care even to acknowledge this, even to themselves) nobody likes to say why.

Why is this?

Because nobody wishes to be accussed of fomenting the very grave danger of race war. (With all its apocalyptic global repercussions).

This is the dread fear which causes classical laborists to treat the S. Africa Q like a bomb. They don't wish to be accussed of detonating it.

Hence they watch nervously as it ticks, hoping it will go away. The more craven, praising the criminal continuim.

No effort is made to defuse the bomb.

But a pro-active approach is the only way to prevent or (if it explodes) halt/cauterize the catastrophe.

The Trial of Winnie Mandela

We are told that continuing injustice must be tolerated for the sake of peace.

And this to be sure is the key factor in the Winnie Mandela trial. For behind her stand the ranks of the angry, the dispossessed, the betrayed.

This trial is about the criminal continuim (trying to) put the lid on this outrage.

These traitors are not only guilty of treason but of institutional stupidity. Does anyone, even Nelson Mandela himself, imagine that such anger can be capped with the elimination of Winnie Mandela? That (if it can), it will not burst forth with the most terrible vengeance?

Our job (in the core countries) is to channel this anger in a controlled way - by establishing a global rev pol/econ connexion with S. Africa (and in so doing), to short circuit the dialectics of race war with a rev pol/econ solution - based on the gaurenteeing of the legitimate security concerns of all sections of the community - within a socialist hegemonic (and reconstructionist) framework. Both re-assuring whites (that there will not be a slide into race war) and making rebellion against socialist hegemony (by whites) IMPOSSIBLE. (A solution supported by Black/white etc sections of the community, upheld by peace enforcers - from Euro rev states - by common consent).

By preventing them from mounting such a counter rebellion, actually gaurenteeing their security. Likewise with Blacks, in gaurenteeing a rev pol/econ framework for their future/evolving prosperity, preventing/cauterizing any degenerative slide into race war (so that any such currents will be viewed as a threat to Blacks, BY Blacks).

BUT AT ALL COSTS OPPOSING IMPERIALIST INTERVENTION IN S. AFRICA - FOR ANY FORCE NOT WORKING WITHIN A GLOBAL COMMONWEALTH FRAMEWORK WILL INEVITABLY BECOME/ DEGENERATE WHOLESALE INTO AN IMPERIAL FORCE WAGING A RACE WAR.

Having established that global connexion is imperative, we are still left with the Q,

What must be the attitude of the globally re-inforced revolutionary movement to the trial of Winnie Mandela?

We should remember the key principle. We are not for parties or leaders, but for structure, controlled by the armed rev people.

The Q is not `do we slavishly submit to any personal authority of ms Mandela?' But `do we recognise the authority of the criminal continuim to pass judgement on her - in order to preserve the fiction of its' legitimacy?'

As said the regime seeks to condemn Winnie Mandela in order to firm up its own legitimacy.

OUR central task is to seperate these 2 Qs.

Whatever the truth about Winnie Mandela, it is for a proper court of law to decide, wether to clear her name or hang her. But be sure, if she deserves to hang, there are in any case criminals in the govt (note atrocities in ANC training camps, & worse, the incorporation of the ANC militants arch enemy, tribal fascist Chief Gatsha Buthelezi into Nelson Mandelas' administration) and more so in the Apartheid regime - that have committed far worse crimes than she is accussed of.

Even if guilty, if it is Winnie Mandela's aim to go to trial in order to demonstrate that even if she should hang, so should the criminals that have now set themselves up as (legitimated) law (not to mention the Apartheid incumbents & core institutional pol/econ beneficiaries), then this is a noble aim. It concurs with ours.

But to sum up/clarify -

Elsewhere, you prove the crime, to illustrate the rev pol/econ program. But in S. Africa, you illustrate the pol/econ program (for a rev pol/econ settlement) to prove & counteract the crime (and underpin the program).

The way this is to be accomplished is through the geo pol/econ gravitational pull on popular (and to a certain degree state) institutions around a rev settlement.

Eg we can do bugger all without such external points of support, but with it, we can pull (especially Black) S. Africa into our orbit.

To re-cap, we have seen that there were no rev geo pol/econ points of support from the core - which be the pre condition for a rev reconstructionist program. Eg only laborism, if laborism could take power anywhere it would be S Africa. But without a clear (& enforced) point of reconstructionist consolidation, the logic of overturn, overturn, ovrturn feeds into race war. Which is why the masses tolerated for a period the ANC acceptance of power on the basis of the aforementioned pol/econ continuum.

So it might appear (cogniscent of, but setting aside the nuclear Q) that general war was the only other option/path available to overthrow the apartheid regime

But the core radical aided frontline states regimes (bearing in mind the core radical bloc would not wear it & therefore tolerate such moves from the frontline states regimes), were able to use the nat sec state threat/pretext to retain control of the pol/econ agenda, rendering stillborne any such tendancy among their own citizenry/military. And insuring that there was `an understanding' with the ANC exile leadership (who they aided), that to push too hard would lead to a savage SA counter response & then therefore (any such action leading to such a response) this would not be tolerated by said regimes.

Of course if you cannot dictate a military pol/econ agenda/framework whereby the continual raising of the ante is in control of & to the benefit of the resistance, you are compelled to dance defacto to the enemies tune. And it is in this context that the atrocities in the ANC training camps should be seen.

The (foreign aided leadership of the) ANC therefore, caught between the aspirations of SA revolutionary militants (unable to consolidate a rev reconstructionist centre of gravity) & the demands of geo pol realpolitik in the context of the globally re-inforced capitalist hegemony was caught in a perfectly hopeless, ghastly historical trap. It steered a path to retain control of the movement without undermining its (core radical & later bourgeois) establishment points of support. Hence the detention of MK mutineers (by the ANCs security dept `Mbokodo'), who were demanding to be sent back to SA to fight.

Though as we have seen, this `realpolitik' has only served tp preserve plunder by other means & will inevitably lead to race war anyway - unlesss the global revolution cuts it dead.

In conclusion therefore, the ANC leaders are both victims & villains of an historically impossible situation. The new methods of rev warfare were then undeployable & the old (especially security/secrecy based) simply counter productive - laying the basis for a criminal continuum.

But whatever sympathies one might feel for such, must be restrained by the absolute neccessity of removeing the criminal continuum from power (which constitutes an active obstacle to the revolution) - nothing, no consideration whatever must deflect us from this objective.

The eternal crisis of security (secrecy) centred radical polity has always placed the power in the hands of various KGBs, security depts etc - in turn as a consequance of being so top heavy being susceptible to secret state machinations from the enemy itself. As opposed to rank & file activists. And was by & large symptomatic of organisations that (in the context of global finance capitals' hegemonic control of the pol/econ agenda in the core states - which before this hegemony crumbled made it impossible to push a rev reconstructionist program & therefore impossible to gear up for all out re dem civil war) were not gearing up for total conflict. In which merely existing (preserving the para power of a leading coterie) became by bitter default, the primary end in itself - to be enforced against rev dissidents, whose militancy undermines their kudos or as with the ANC exile leadership, imperils the survival of said leadership by going beyond the bounds of the established `acceptable' violent dialogue within geo capitalist hegemony.

To re- iterate, security (secrecy) based polity can never work for the revolution, except at an episodic and/or peripheral level (eg vis gun running & allies in the bowels of the enemy regime itself). It can never be the continuous core strategy of the core of the movement - which must be centred on the rank & file activist.

HOW should we deal with crimes committed within such a (security based) context?

In dealing with core radical crimes (of USSR), crimes proceeding from tragically unavoidably flawed struggle dialectics, our interest exists ONLY for as long as such elements constitute an operational threat to the revolution &/or its movement.

Hence our natural position be amnesty for illegitimate acts by the IRA, the ANC - though NOTof the ANC criminal continuum - or any such ultras waging war on a rev settlement (against various such elements counter terror measures should be used to enforce rev law/settlement/centre of gravity). Our desire is to secure the rev program, to spill the minimum of enemy blood neccessary to comprehensively break the enemy's will to resist - To rake over the crimes of elements which no longer constitute a threat runs counter to the spirit of the above framework & implies a lust for bloodshed for its own sake; eg far deeper than is neccessary to break the will of the enemy.

Vis Winnie Mandelas alledged crimes, while we are not pro actively supportive of such a trial, it is the inalienable right of the ruling class to commit suicide in this fashion.

We would rather not do so, but if the ruling class choose this approach (while NOT recognising their right to pass judgement & continuing with the popular indictment of the regime from below), we must push things to their logical conclusion - after the revolution - at least in a mere handful of such demonstration cases. The alternative is to cover up, bringing revolutionary law into disrepute.

Such is the way the revolution must deal with (a few) such tragic cases from the old epoch of struggle. We have already examined in Vol 1 Chapter 2 the Q of how under all eventualites, the leaders of the new movement will be kept in check by the rev activists & citizenry.

Comparing the Global Civil war with WWII

New weapons systems take many years to devlop and deploy.

When you have a (semi) permanent stand off between 2 or more great empires (with latent potential for internal pol/econ development), there is logic in this long ball game.

In the global civil war, security Qs are immediate, and do not permit years/decades of development of such weapons systems.

In the contempory context (as outlined in S. O. F.) with no global potential for development on the basis of social differentiation, disarmament is a more effective political weapon (to attract support of civil populations in non liberated states) than long ball re-armament is/could ever be as a military strategy.

There are already more than enough weapons in the world for these civil populations to seize and shoot their ruling elites with.

We/all are wholly dependant on the active, insurgent civil populations in other countries for our mutual security. Our ENTIRE military pol/econ strategy should be/is drawn up with this central fact in mind - The choice that faces us now is, Freedom, reconstruction & Commonwealth for ALL, or military- plutocratic fascism & the abyss of nuclear, chemical & biological warlordism.

There is no military advantage to be gained & every political advantage to be lost, by attempting to retreat behind cold war modes of military economic development.

The difference between the contempory and the WWII situation is that now a transnational operational connexion (between insurgent forces) is possible (in a global civil war).

Why not before?

Because until the new mode of rev warfare had become viable - with the collapse of (illusions in) laborism, with the collapse of geo pol/econ potential for development, on the basis of the hegemony of global finance - resistance was held back by the operational constraints of laborism working within a system with geo pol/econ capacity for reform.

As we have already seen, there was geo pol/econ re-inforcement of the role of each (key) nation in its historic role (within the emergant global pol/econ).

(To further elaborate as to why there was no Anglo/German workers alliance against fascism - such as can take place now-) Because of the (inevitable) hegemony of the British ruling class regime(over the British people), WWII was waged (inevitably) in a particular way; liberal imperialism - a war for the subjegation of the (expansionist) German nation by the Anglo/USA core- & due to fear of core radicalism, redevelopment (of an inevitably expansionist Germany - as the global pol/econ decomposed again) within the incipient global pol/econ - which offered the German workers no lever to break from their regime - eg to forge a rev Euro Commonwealth(such as can be done NOW to permanently displace the inevitably expansionist nation state construct). Making it impossible to (effectively) win over the German people - re-inforcing the (Hitlerian) logic of total war (`national death'), to the bitter end.

Eg the political weapons open to us were not available to the (hegemonic force of) Churchill & co. Hence the total reliance on military industrial weight and latent geo pol/econ potentiality (vis the incipient global pol/econ, temporary alliance of core radicalism and USA hegemony) for reform under USA hegemony.

(Though as already seen, if Nazis over ran Britain - revolution would have been possible - but the inevitabilityof USA/USSR involvement pre-determined the liberal imperialist character of the war)

Thence we must ask ourselves the Q, Why there were extensive semi successful mutinies (in Germany) in WWI but such tendancies (insofar as they existed) were almost completely ineffective in WWII?

In a word, Russia. In WWI the German masses leant on Russia (enemy fear of revolt) to end the war.

But the failure of both:

German laborism (which failure as a revolutionary force, aided WWI in the first place) and:

The Russian Revolution to break the pol/econ impasse (geo pol/econ hegemony of finance - as outlined in Vol1 chapters 5, 6 & 7), as it merely re-inforced, for a period, German faith in Marxism (with no operational framework to seize power - as seen in Vol1), this (as we have seen) led to the triumph of Hitler/German caesarism.

As Russia offered no way forward, the more the German people inexorably (inevitably) moved down the Hitler road, the more impossible it was to turn back. Hence the re-inforced savagery of a people without option, but to see the damnable Hitler project through to the hellish finish.

The western determination (need) to break Germany as a great power in its own right, also afforded it no potential/no room for manouevre - after the earlier re-inforcement of the Hitler regime against the USSR.

It is this that accounts for any apparent paradox between the supine acquiescence to German caesarism followed by the liberal imperialist determination that Germany should be recaste in the image of the (victors, which even if desiring annihilation of Germany meant the) new geo pol/econ - no end to the war until this had been achieved.

Given this prior re-inforcement of the Nazi regime against the USSR (and hegemony of the British elite, liberal imperialist character of the war & German masses fear of conquest therefore) disarmament could NOT (then) be used as an effective political weapon.

Bomber Harris therefore, was the only viable histoircal tool for the job - that was undertaken inevitably within the regime's hegemony - Which equally inevitably, long term - after potential for geo pol/econ reform exhausted - brings us to the present day fascist menace.

It is only now with the collapse of cold war dialectics, that (along with geo pol/econ potential for reform) no classical fascist state can have such geo pol/econ re-inforcement (such as Nazi Germany had); & that NUCLEAR disarmament can be used as an effective political weapon in the global civil war. To leave foreign tyrannies confronted solely by their own people - unable to point to a geo pol/econ threat, as Hitler could with Stalins' USSR (with the Nazis BACKED by the west, until, propelled by the inexorable logic of permanent inflation, requiring new colonies to pass the costs of the elites' tyranny onto, they pushed too far).

Now we can mitigate the effects of national friction between Germany and the rest of Europe with an antidote comprising Euro-Commonwealth patriotism & global reconstruction aided by the God Dialectic of `Redemption Through Sacrifice' - to avoid the richer states choking on their own barbed wire. This be the Germanic & European component of the manifestation of the chain reaction in the consciousness of humanity seizing hegemony over matter (and taking place globally).

This means that even if German military plutocracy crushes a rev stockade state, all it succeeds in doing is exhausting in toto its own nat sec state justification - breathing life into the rev pol program (linked with the assault on German classical fascism) - paving the way for its own overthrow.

Trotskyism in WWII

As we have seen, the British regime was compelled to resist for fear of a British Commune (if they tried to sell the country to Hitler), arising (like the Paris Commune of 1871) in the face of an actual military onslaught.

Why is there no such rev threat or possibility now? No individual country is strong enough to assert itself as such. Indeed not since the USA led epoch of the global pol/econ (formerly refractory 3rd world peoples/countries subordinated by a connexion with the USSR) and certainly not in the epoch of global finance- without the new methods outlined (in S.O.F.) for global civil war.

So what of the Trotskyists?

Unlike the pacifists (or CP apologists for the Hitler/Stalin pact at the start of the war), their position is at least worthy of serious analysis/critique.

Their ultimate aim was to `Convert the imperialist war into a civil war'

At the heart of this notion was their misinterpretation of the (rise of Stalinism in the) Russian Revolution (and its failure to be replicated in Europe), as not the (inevitable) outcome of geo pol/econ circumstances/dialectics (as outlined in Vol 1 C5 & C6), but something that could have been resolved by prosecuting the classical marxian modes of struggle `more efficiently' (rather than noting the fundamental fatal weakness of a struggle dialectic contained within the enemy's operational agenda - as we have seen in Vol1).

Therefore in every nation, Trotskyism was left over as a dwarf phenonemon, of the same failed Marxian methodology, of trying to foment global revolt, constrained by the operational agenda of the enemy in every country - therefore no operational global connexion (ability to seize control of the operational pol/econ agenda/delegitimise the regime) - only slogans of `solidarity'.

This is what led to their opposition to WWII - as a `distraction' from the civil war (which they had no operational mode of struggle that would enable them to start) - rather than, what it was, a desperate fight (even though the monster was aided by the criminality of the British regime previously) for survival.

The much more dishonest/craven role of the CP following the Hitler/Stalin pact, should also be seen as a similar marginal phenonemon, of little significance.
All (Existing) Roads Lead to Fascism

We have seen that the decomposition of materialist rationalism with capitalism has led to the rise of manifold fascist currents in the first world - most particularly capital market led (through the established political/parties/structure), though (the different forms of) orthodox classical fascism shall explode on the scene with the global econ implosion.

But there are other currents that need examination.

Satanism: The Alter ego of Christianity

Christian (crypto) fascism in the USA grew out of the reccessionary wave (including the speculative credit boom).

The question we must ask ourselves is why in such striking form there - but not really anywhere else? Why at all?

Largely it represents the retrenchment of an imperial myth - that America's destiny lies (solely) in America's hands...If Only... (A current not so strong in smaller powers). A monstrously mutated off-spring of the utopian idea of Godly destiny, dialectically traceable to, John Brown and the Fifth Monarchists (though the belief in the power to change the core nation's destiny is the only thing they'd profess to share).

To say this is what has become of the John Brown and Fifth Monarchist currents may be in one sense a dreadful defamation; as it is not really their political descendants following Christian fascism. Yet this is what has become of the utopian current generally (the better elements of the militias notwithstanding).

And just as different (institutionalised pol/econ) tides brought different sets of activists to the fore - so it is with utopianism and mutated utopianism.

The most striking (contemporary) manifestation of crypto Satanism is the Holy bomb, the crypto Satanic belief in the `cleansing' of humanity through nuclear war (courtesy of General Electric/MacDonnell Douglas et al). Hence with the progressive role of utopianism played out and classical rationalism (also) dead - with no other path of automatic development left to follow; evil worship grows out of decomposed utopianism, as surely as fascism manifests itself out of the orthodox `democratic' parties - under the hegemony of the capital markets.

And the active (political) motor force of the (old) Apocalypse concept - from once being centred on cabals of the rich and powerful - ends up as a (morally fragmented) cult (morbidly centred on `individual salvation') for the suicide of the entire human race (Jim Jones scarcely registers as a flyshit by comparison), for no other reason than that the `faithful' cannot bear to face up to their terror of exerting their own (an educated) FREE WILL (standing alone in mortal combat) against the military plutocrats.

Christian fascism is borne of seeking an accommodation (implicitly or explicitly) with power - for nothing remains but to wage total war against the war economy, or take refuge in dreams of a last judgement. The rejection of humanity (through its own self education and free will) seizing its own destiny (prostration to church/state) is the very kernel of crypto satanism/crypto fascism.

3rd World Fascism - The Internecine State

In the 3rd world (fundamentalist) fascism follows a markedly different pattern.

For cultural reasons Islamic (and also `left' - eg Khmer Rouge - even before being backed by the CIA, Sendero in Peru) fascism appears as a liberator from imperialism (simply by being a different religion/culture to that of the core states - with the collapse of the USSR and defeat of indigenous orthodox laborism, no geo pol/econ points of support for laborism etc). This means (with a decomposing centre of national/global gravity) it is able to consolidate a power base among the poor (incapable of mounting effective resistance on the basis of the old means of laborist struggle) - leading to the undermining of points of support (for global capitalism - of course the more it is attacked by the plutocrats the more it grows - as a kind of fragmented version of early Christianity/Neo Christianity) leading not to any new state - but a consolidated collapse into fragmented barbarism/warlordism.

This also applies to Khmer Rouge/Sendero (whose pol/econ currents decomposed before their seizure of power - catalysed, among other things, by Maoist degeneration of Chinese Stalinism, ethnic marginalisation and carpet bombings etc); though Cambodia swept up in regional/Chinese boom - this will be cut across by regional power conflict.

The exception that proves the rule is Chechnya. This curiously is due to a double negative phenomenon - brought about by actual invasion (by comprador- fascist Russia) with the support of the imperialist west - keeping Chechen forces relatively clean - their only option to rely on the support of the Chechen people which curiously therefore tended to cut across the fascizing aspect of the fundamentalist dialectic (requiring a vibrant NOT repressed people - to wage war) - leastways until the Russians gone.

Afghanistan however which was polluted by support from the CIA drug dealing mafia - exhibited what happens to a cause if the core imperialists do back it.

Liberation Theology

Arising with the eclipse of Marxism (and the specifically L. Amer forms of Revolutionary Bonapartism) in L. Amer, Liberation Theology represents a phenomenon of political shrinkage. Eg it does not represent an internecine state tendancy. Because like one that lives next door to a burglar - with a shared culture with the first world - that would be too obvious a con to capture the masses. By default therefore it ends up as part of the radical institutionalised opposition.

Eg in taking over this shared culture, it cannot progress beyond it to take the attack to the enemy at the core. It is trapped within the limitations of church based struggle, which are more acute at the core, where the enemy has its key base.

This means the new methods of rev warfare &the new philosophy/ God dialectic are required to face down the core enemy. Without being able to rely on supporting army leaders (that in turn need their positions consolidated by the core) like Hugo Chavez, Alexander Lebed etc; we in Europe need a martyr based cadre, the I-Bs/ Commonwealth Army as the backbone of the movement.

Liberation Theology is a kind of ghost of the Reformation, becoming more and more doomed - faced with the omnipotence of the `New Rome' of finance capital. - Ultimately displaying a tendancy to shrink back into hopelessly pacific (early type) Christianity. Albeit (for what little its worth) with elements of equally inert Marxism (still) grafted onto it. Liberation Theology represents a union of 2 Zeros.

(This may seem misplaced given the potential Rise of the South, but the key point is that without European consolidation, Liberation Theology's total ineffectualness at the core, is steel proof of this reality)

Comparing with Rome, could we be coming full circle?

No. Liberation Theology cannot absorb the state, because there is no basis for supra national expansion; due to the still remaining hegemony of finance. Only with the complete collapse into barbarism, meaning war, and the most totalised decomposition of humanity - including exhaustion of all means of destruction; until a point at which military forces become dependant on the contemporary productive forces.

Only then (assuming intelligent life still exists) does a repeat of early Christian dynamic became a possibility. Until then a decomposing rationalism will hold sway and bring down, even further, Liberation Theology with it.

From all sides we can see that all the old modes of struggle are finished. Humanity is left finally and irrevocably with the neccessity, of asserting its FREE WILL - Raised from a secondary to a primary historical factor - It is our only weapon, it is the ultimate weapon - A chain reaction in the consciousness of humanity propelled by blood sacrifice - as the mechanism by which the global regime must/can and shall be overthrown.