Exerpts America Against America

← Back to all essays | Author's essays Exerpts America Against America

by Deogeo
Published: 2024-08-28 (last update: 2024-08-28)
Error: Invalid content

What are the material conditions of the United States? Understanding this question is central to grasping how far away the United States is from a revolutionary situation. Wang Huning's insights will help illustrate the current material conditions.

Chapter V Interwoven Political Forces

It is not possible to or very difficult to fully understand a system when living inside it. The outside perspective is also needed. Wang Huning's observations regarding the essence of the political system are particularly useful here.

1. Donkey and Elephant Rule the Country

"The donkey is the symbol of the Democratic Party and the elephant is the symbol of the Republican Party. Some people have imaginatively described the election campaign in the United States as "the battle of the donkey and the elephant". In fact, both parties represent the ruling class of society and control politics, so it can also be said that "the donkey and the elephant rule the country". When analyzing the U.S. elections, it is important to understand the pivotal position of both parties. It is impossible to understand American politics and how it is run without understanding bipartisan politics. American politics is run by both parties, but neither party is really a political party, just an "aggregated mass". Compared to most Western and Eastern political parties, they are an even "rabble". We can look at why American political parties are rather like a "rabble".

For one thing, neither party has a set system of membership (some registration procedures); in fact, they don't have members in the strict sense of the word, and voters can self-identify with whichever party they want. Voters can self-identify with whichever party they vote for in the election. No one recognizes them as "party members," and they don't need to be recognized to say, "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat. Even senior party leaders probably had no concept of "party membership" from the beginning. The doors of both parties were wide open, and access was free, like a temple.

Second, neither party has a systematic theory, and there are differences between the two parties on many issues. But there are also various views among the two parties, from the left to the right, and from the center, etc. Among the members of both parties, all ideas can be heard. Senators or Representatives nominated and elected by both parties are also free to decide what to do, and can even oppose their own party's proposals.

Third, neither party has a complete platform, and if you want to find a copy of the Democratic or Republican party platform, you will never find one. Political parties generally have only two kinds of documents that indicate their positions and propositions, one is the platform formed at the nominating convention, but it cannot bind anyone. The other is the president's speech about it. So neither party can tell people clearly what they really want. They only propose some reform ideas on domestic and foreign affairs at election time, not their basic lines.

Fourth, neither party has a tight organization, and it is rare to hear which party holds branch or membership meetings in general. American political parties are electoral parties, that is, they are active only at election time, and it is not clear who is a member of the party itself during weekdays. It is like a person who is in a market and does not know what he or she should do until then. The federal system, too, prevents both parties from becoming well-organized parties. Each state has its own independent power, and the boundaries between the federal and state parties are well understood, with each state actually having its own Democratic and Republican parties. What the local party organizations do at election time is not known to the national organization. Regardless of this, what people are talking about is whether or not a candidate with their party's logo can be elected.

This shows that the concept of two parties is very different from that of a normal political party. But such loose organizations should not be underestimated; sometimes their strength lies in such looseness. Of course, it is not that the two parties are not organized, it is just that these organizations are not very effective outside of elections.

There are two types of political party organizations in the United States, one permanent and one ad hoc. The lowest level is called a Precinct Committee, which usually has only one person in charge. At the same level are town committees and other committees. At the top is the county commission, whose committee is made up of precinct members (usually), with the county commission being the more important layer. Between the county and state committees, there is a congressional district committee that puts forward candidates for Congress. Further up the ladder is the state committee. Because state legislation varies from state to state, the mechanism for creating state committees varies greatly and is not uniform. The state committee is the permanent body of the party in the state and is responsible for promoting the party and consolidating it. The chairman of the committee is a prominent figure in politics. Finally, there is the National Committee. The National Committee is composed of representatives from each state. The National Committee is loose, has little power, and cannot do much. Both parties do not have a formal central committee or standing committee, and there is no concept of a "U.S. Standing Committee. The chairman of the national committee is responsible for leading the campaign headquarters, promoting the candidates, fundraising and other matters, and has little power, but only a steward role.

In addition to this, both parties will have Headquarter for election services, from national headquarters, state headquarters to county headquarters.

It may seem that the two parties still have a more decent top-down, or bottom-up, organization, but in reality there is very little connection between the organizations, because there is no theory, no party platform, no fixed membership, and no idea how to connect. There was some connection between the national committee and the state committees, and little connection further down. The national headquarters also had no control over the local headquarters, which went about their business under the banner of the national headquarters. Because the main goal of the local headquarters is to win elections, there are no other benefits to be gained, such as a bigger share of the house, buying some cheap goods and riding in a nice little car. The people who come to work understand what they are doing before they come, so it works fine. As long as you can win the election, you can use whatever tricks you have. The National Committee doesn't bother to control either.

The two parties are the most willing to have others fight under their banner. You can do whatever you want as long as you play under my banner and negotiate certain terms. National franchise stores, such as McDonald's, Hardee's, and Kentucky Fried Chicken, are available nationwide. The head office has no idea what they are doing other than selling the same goods. Americans implement the same ideas in politics and economics. The two parties are like a National franchise, with each branch doing its own thing to sell its products.

In fact, there are not only the two parties, there are also many small parties, such as the Socialist Workers Party, the American Party, the People's Party, the Communist Party of America, etc. But they have never become a major party that can compete with the Republican and Democratic parties. One of the important reasons is that the two parties do not have clear boundaries, including a lot of "dissidents", There is no need for them to take refuge in others or occupy the top of the mountain because they are excluded.

It is sometimes unbelievable that two major parties that can dominate politics are so loosely organized. In fact the energy of the two parties lies in the looseness.

For one thing, it's hard for American culture to accept a well-organized political party and to understand a party platform that is ready to be used for twenty years. Americans are pragmatic and it's not even that easy for them to come up with the idea. They want to solve the specific problems they encounter in society. The individualism that people are raised with makes it difficult for them to become so deeply involved in a political organization that they can disregard their own interests. People choose political parties for their own benefit.

Second, both parties are open doors, anyone can enter and exit, the grassroots party members can not talk about discipline. The U.S. political parties are an ugly "hodgepodge", well known for their inclusiveness. In fact, this is an important condition for the long-term existence of the two parties. The two parties have no mechanism to exclude those who are willing to support them, but have a mechanism to absorb different people. Because there are no clear boundaries, anyone who wants to can come in and anyone who wants to can go out, and there is no real point in opposing them. The general public can only be uproarious, the main power of the party was in the hands of a small group of party leaders, unavailable to the general public.

Third, both parties are electoral parties whose main purpose is to win elections and do not have a fixed political goal. They do whatever will help them win the election. This mechanism motivates them to cater to voters' aspirations as much as possible and to unite themselves with their voters. The policy ideas that both parties talk about actually summarize voters' problems, and then propose solutions. This ability to adapt is also important for both parties to maintain their position. In this process, party leaders add the idea of representing the interests of big money and specific classes to the mix. Of course, after winning an election, they may disregard all their campaign promises and do something else. Voters have little control at this point."

...

5. Radical Organizations

Passing through the city center, there was a girl who had a book stall in a busy place. Not many people patronized it. I happened to be walking by and took a look at the books she was selling and was intrigued. The books on the stall included The Communist Manifesto, a collection of Castro's speeches, and a collection of Trotsky's speeches. It was easy to see that she belonged to a leftist radical organization. It is said that there are hundreds of such small organizations or micro-organizations in the United States. They are active, but have little political influence, and most of the population does not care about them.

The girl was also selling their organization's newspaper, The Militant, with the following headline: A weekly socialist news magazine published for the benefit of the workers. The Militant was a 16-page newspaper, like the Shanghai newspaper Xinmin Evening News, and sold for one dollar a copy, which was more expensive than the average newspaper.

Browsing through The Militant, one can see a bit of interesting and thought-provoking news.

The largest amount of space was devoted to the defense of a man named Mark Curtis. This man was an active member of the organization and was accused of sexual assault. The story is that on March 4, 1988, the girl who identified him, Morris, was at home watching television when, after about 8 p.m., someone called for her parents and she said they were not home. Ten minutes later there was a knock on the door and when she opened it, the man sexually assaulted her and beat her. The Militant published the activities of Curtis that night to prove that Curtis did not have time for this, and the newspaper called for public solidarity with Curtis.

Also in the news: criticism of Prime Minister Thatcher for expelling the Cuban Ambassador to the UK and the Third Secretary of the Cuban Embassy. Oscar Fernandez Mell, the Cuban ambassador to Britain, was one of the founders of the Cuban Communist Party, was elected to the first Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party, and had assisted Zaire's anti-imperialist struggle together with Che Guevara. The girl who sold newspapers once said that Cuba was the only socialist country left in the world, I'm afraid. There was a large report on political movements in Burma. One reported on a rally of 250 people in Zimbabwe to discuss Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution and an article on the experience of the Pennsylvania miners' strike.

An article worth mentioning, so that one can probably grasp the basic idea of this radical organization, is titled "One Caribbean, One Destiny" and is about a conference held in New York. The subject of the conference was the prospects of the anti-imperialist struggle. The conference was organized by the Caribbean Unity Coalition. This organization consisted of 38 political organizations from 23 countries. The main speaker was the press secretary of the former Prime Minister of Grenada. His statement is worth reading. He said: "What we are going to discuss is the use of our coalition against theirs. Our coalition, meaning the coalition of workers, farmers, fishermen, young people, students, people who are suffering. Their coalition refers to people with power, privilege, capital, and wealth." In today's world, there are still many who speak such words. Many participants condemned the U.S. intervention in Cuba and Nicaragua, saying it was aggression and a major obstacle to human beings getting housing, education, bread and other basic necessities of life.

More interestingly, the newspapers also carried notices of this party, the Socialist Workers Party, running in the 1988 presidential election. The presidential candidate was Warren, the vice presidential candidate was Mickells, and there was a campaign committee. Such a candidate would naturally not get much traction and would probably be completely downed out in the noisy campaign of Bush and Dukakis.

The newspaper The Militant called for popular subscriptions, advertising that The Militant tells the truth and reports the facts and the truth about the war waged by the United States against the peoples of the world, and that if the truth were obtained only by major mass communication, we would be ignorant of the war waged by the United States against the peoples of El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

As you can see from the above reports, this is a radical group, and there are countless such radical groups in the US and other Western societies, but most of them have little impact. Some of the issues that these organizations talk about are true, and some of their ideas are not unhelpful to social progress. The status of these self-proclaimed socialist organizations is particularly low in the United States. I am afraid that these phenomena cannot be seen in the context of the programs and activities of these organizations, but in fact reflect the relationship between the two major ideologies in the world today. Since the post-war socialist countries have encountered twists and turns of one kind or another, their economic development has lagged far behind that of the capitalist countries, so their overall appeal is not sufficient. The economic development of the capitalist countries, on the other hand, has produced an overwhelming appeal. Generally speaking, the public does not judge the merits of society from the point of view of institutions, structures, ideas, spirituality, human nature, etc., but from their own daily life, or from the gut, not from the brain. Because of the huge gap in economic and social development, organizations and ideas that advocate reforming the capitalist system will have no great impact in Western society. Therefore, American society also leaves them to their own devices. If one day the economic level between the East and the West is reversed, I am afraid that they will have to be regulated. In fact, we won't have develop beyond them, just pull even, and the ideological battle may rise again. A friend says that this is a good point, and that with a few more serious recessions, there will be a market for radicals.