Smith referred to an article in the Dec. 23, 1996, Militant titled "Hundreds at socialist conferences discuss struggle for a proletarian party today." The paragraph in question read, "Widespread allegations of corruption and sexual misconduct by public officials have also become a permanent feature of bourgeois politics, the SWP leader [Dennis Richter] pointed out. This coarsening of politics, which reached new heights during the election campaign, fuels resentment in the middle classes. If workers pick up on it, social solidarity among working people is undercut."

Smith said he did not understand how the scandal- mongering by public officials can undercut working-class solidarity, and stated that the corrupt nature of U.S. capitalism goes back a century, and asked what's new about this today. He also said, "I do not think crudity in bourgeois politics has reached new heights." Smith pointed to the "crude attacks of the McCarthy era," former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson's campaign ads attacking his Republican opponent Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential race, and George Bush's "use of Willie Horton in the 1988 campaign against [Democrat Michael] Dukakis" as worse than the current allegations of corruption and sexual misconduct by Clinton, Gingrich, and company.

I admit that the paragraph under discussion in the article I authored was written in short hand, did not go into an explanation of the issues at any length, and could be subject to misunderstanding. But let's take up the questions Smith raises.

Capitalist class is always corrupt, but more vulnerable to scandals during decline

I agree with Smith that the ruling class is corrupt under capitalism in all periods. They cheat and lie to each other all the time. They use the government to enrich themselves and their friends, and workers are aware of all this.

But during capitalism's decay - as declining rates of profit and of economic growth, ballooning speculation on the stock and bond markets, slowdown in the accumulation of capital, rising unemployment, and falling real wages become the norm - the ruling class can appear to be much more corrupt and scandal-ridden than usual. That's because it's harder for big business and their spokespeople to constantly hide everything about what they do.

When capitalist politicians say they are for "less government," for example, that's not what they really mean. Even when the capitalist class was on the rise historically, the executive branch of the government was always careful about what it said publicly, including in front of parliaments and congresses. They lied continually. During capitalism's decline the rulers concentrate more power in the executive branch, as they need to hide more and more of what they must do to defend imperialist interests against working people at home and around the world.

The recent accusations of lying and being soft on "Soviet spies" against Anthony Lake, Clinton's nominee to head the CIA, are a case in point. According to Republican opponents, the former national security adviser aided the administration's policy of turning a blind eye to Iranian arms sales to the government in Bosnia during a U.S.- imposed embargo on such sales to that Yugoslav republic, and kept the CIA in the dark about this. Lake who was touted earlier as a liberal academic with disdain for "covert action" has in fact supported Clinton's secret operation to help foment dissent in northern Iraq. The Lake controversy, however, is mainly about Washington's loss of a client regime in Iran -that of the Shah, overthrown in the 1979 revolution - and its failure to accomplish some of U.S. imperialism's main goals in the war against the Iraqi people in 1990-91, and ever since.

Scandals involving top government officials reflect deeper political problems
All major scandals involving top government officials reflect deeper political problems for the rulers. The Watergate crisis, for example, had little to do with the incident after which it was named - the break-in at the Democratic 1972 national campaign committee office at the Watergate building organized by the campaign committee of Republican Richard Nixon. Watergate simply registered the implications for the U.S. bourgeoisie of American imperialism's defeat in Vietnam.

The difference between the McCarthy era, the 1960s, or even the end of the Vietnam war, and today is that during those periods capitalism was still in the post-war boom, unlike the depression conditions the wages system is mired in now.

While capitalists politicians are not more corrupt today, they are more vulnerable to scandal-mongering because of the deepening and irresolvable problems of their system. Behind the "ethics" investigation of House Speaker Newton Gingrich, or "Indogate" and Paula Jones's accusations of sexual misconduct against President William Clinton, are real tactical differences between and within the two big-business parties over how to orchestrate the rulers' assault on the social wage and other aspects of their war on labor.

This scandal-mongering has become more of a permanent feature of bourgeois politics since world capitalism plunged into depression conditions in the early 1990s. It is the stock-in-trade of ultrarightists, and does not serve the interests of those who toil for a living. While it did reach some new heights in the course of the 1996 election campaign, especially at its finale, it continues at a historically high pitch right now.

The Gingrich controversy, the counterattacks by Republicans against Democratic congressman James McDermott for supposedly illegal leaks of a pirate audio tape of a phone call by Gingrich, and the Supreme Court hearings on whether Clinton should be brought to trial to face charges by Paula Jones are only a few of the front-page, headline- grabbing "news" since the dawn of 1997.

I think readers will find it refreshing to go back to or read for the first time a portion of the main political resolution adopted by the 1994 national convention of the Socialist Workers Party, "Imperialism's march toward fascism and war," which deals precisely with these questions. For this reason we are reprinting a pertinent section of that report on page 11.

Why uppercase `Black'?
Reader Patricia Maynard asked in a letter, also published in last week's issue, why does the Militant use uppercase Black when referring to African-Americans. The reason for this long-standing policy of the paper is that Blacks in the United States are an oppressed nationality, unlike residents of this country who are white. It's in recognition of the historic inequality and discrimination against Blacks perpetrated by capitalism, and the vanguard role of the Black nationality in the fight to eliminate racism and class exploitation, that the Militant uses upper case Black. The only exception is when we quote other publications that use lower case b for Blacks. The Militant also applies the same policy for Latinos or Native Americans for similar reasons.

- ARGIRIS MALAPANIS  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home