Sudip Bhattacharya argues that for socialists in the United States, the main enemy is at home.
Amilcar Cabral, the late revolutionary hero for the independence of Guinea-Bissau, condemned NATO members for their military and financial support for the Portuguese oppressor.
“Everybody knows today that Portugal, the Portuguese government, if it could not count on the assistance of its NATO allies, would not be able to carry on fighting against us,” said Cabral in 1965 at a conference gathering the various nationalist movements across Africa vying for power and freedom from Portuguese domination.
Cabral would then go on to cite the weaponry from various NATO member countries, from helicopters from France to Mauser rifles belonging to West German forces, that the Guinea-Bissau fighters for freedom would often find after chasing away Portuguese forces from areas across the country.
Fortunately, the PAIGC, the main liberatory group fighting for Guinea-Bissau’s independence could also rely on international allies of its own, from Nordic countries to the Soviet Union, as well as neighboring national liberation movements, such as the MPLA and Frelimo. Both were Marxist groups that believed in not only winning independence but in wholesale change in how economics and political power got dispersed following the removal of Portuguese colonial troops.
All in all, Cabral and other national liberation movements in the Third World, much less socialist forces on the European continent, correctly identified NATO as what it has always been: a reactionary tool for Western capitalist interests. In the case of the Portuguese struggle to maintain control over its colonies following the end of WWII, NATO members served as a barrier between independence and freedom for Africans and a partner in supporting one of Europe’s most brutal regimes, the fascist and theocratic Portuguese government.
I mention this history, not simply because of how disturbing and frustrating it is, but as a reminder to others of just how vile NATO has been and what it has represented for much of its history. It is not some “abstract” force or rather, something that socialists and communists and progressives must not think about as much. Overall, NATO has been a tool of Western capitalist interests and an institution any sane socialist or progressive cannot wholeheartedly support, let alone defend against criticisms.
But before we delve further into the topic of NATO and what a left anti-imperialist politics should look like or seek to project, I’d like to state that the following is not meant to be a direct response to Chris Maisano’s piece, recently published in the Socialist Forum on the topic of a resolution calling upon DSA’s electeds to disavow NATO, and to support policies that dramatically gut the U.S. war machine.
Maisano’s piece, which I urge everyone to read, urges DSA members to reject such a proposal, arguing, among other things, that having DSA electeds committing to an anti-NATO line essentially is politically dangerous and inviolable. Why? Firstly, the topic of NATO itself is not relevant to most constituents, let alone to the goal of building socialist power in the U.S. In some sense, that is true. When it comes to international issues, most Americans care little, unless there is some massive war or some new country for us to bomb. Still, one wonders if enough care is sufficient for socialists to decide whether an issue is important or not. There was a point in time, after all, when healthcare as an issue or unionization were seen as “unimportant”, or distant. The topic of Palestine, despite more people caring and expressing more sympathy for the cause, still lacks the type of social base for it to become a defining issue in American politics. But who would argue against socialists taking a stand against Israeli aggression and apartheid, regardless of how many people care or say they do.
The other part of Maisano’s critique is the fact that compelling DSA electeds to an anti-NATO line, especially when it comes to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, means straitjacketing officials to a politics they may not support, let alone be able to defend. It means dragging our electeds into discussions they do not want to have. This might be true. Maisano also mentions how for the most part, most electeds, including Sanders, support the Ukrainian defense against Russian aggression.
Once again, I am not here to write a point-by-point rebuttal against Maisano. I do agree with some of his points in fact. Yes, Russian aggression must be condemned. Ukrainian sovereignty is important. Yes, Sanders and others have expressed solidarity with the Ukrainian people and with the Russians opposing Putin’s war.
Still, does this mean that the DSA should not have a position, or attempt to develop one whatsoever? There was a point in time when Sanders wasn’t as pro-immigrant as he is now. But through grassroots organizing and of course, various left forces inclusive of pro-immigrant groups, this politics would change. Sanders himself has become far more open to BDS politics as well, a man who’s proven to be willing to change when there are forces there also willing to explain their positions and its connections to building a broader, more just world. The same can be said of other electeds as well. These are mostly people who are reasonable and thoughtful and I’m sure would be open to DSA members lobbying them on important issues like the war in Ukraine and NATO.
Again, this is not meant to be a direct response to Maisano, whose position on this I respect and who I accept as being genuinely invested in building an effective socialist movement in the U.S., but rather, a short discussion of perhaps what a DSA position on NATO and the U.S. empire should be.
Yes, dismantling the U.S. empire should be the preeminent concern of leftists and socialists inside the U.S.
This does not mean that the U.S. Left broadly must ignore the tyrannical nature of other governments, governments such as the theocracy in Iran, which has continued to jail left dissidents. Simplybecause Iran professes to be against the U.S. in the region does not mean that the DSA should advocate for the regime there. In fact, the DSA International Committee had stated its unequivocal support for Iranian protests that had taken place in the country recently following the arrest and death of an Iranian Kurdish woman by Iranian police.
Still, even with Iran, U.S. foreign policy is a negative force. The sanctions that are in place continue to punish the Iranian people. Much like the sanctions over Iraq in the 1990s, it has led to the rapid deterioration of living standards for most Iranians, including its middle classes. Not to mention that prior to the election of the most recent conservative Iranian prime minister, the Iranian government was more amenable to working with the U.S. in terms of a compromise over Iran’s alleged development of nuclear weapons. The previous prime minister, a reformist, was willing to allow inspectors to enter the country in making sure the program was ended, in return for the lifting of sanctions. For a time being, at the tail end of the Obama administration’s term, this compromise was working for both sides, until the Iranian war hawks got their way under Trump, convincing him to end the agreement and put back into place sanctions that have since then, crippled the economy and made the lives of most Iranians more and more unbearable.
All this to say is that the U.S. often runs roughshod over the rest of the world, including with regimes that aren’t ideal. Throughout its history, the U.S. foreign policy establishment has been an imperial one, addicted to gnawing away at the fabric of the world for the sake of more resources and ownership of land and cheap labor. This process of takeover obviously began with the killing and stealing of native land by Euro-Americans but it would certainly continue at the tail end of WWII, as the U.S. reigned supreme as the world’s hegemonic power.
Since the late 1940s, the U.S. has been a mainly destructive force for much of the world. Not only would the U.S. foreign policy apparatus, a combination of imperialists inside the CIA to corporate interests as well as sections of the pro-American exceptionalist crowd among some liberals and even some sections of the labor movement, seek to dominate the globe for capitalist interests, it would strive to do so by working with some of the most treacherous and toxic political forces across the world. This includes working with fascists and neo fascists in parts of Europe, including in Italy and Greece, as well as similar forces across South America. In fact, in countries like Chile, the U.S. was very much supportive of backing extreme far-right groups, groups that were theocratic and violent and willing to kill and detain even the most moderate social democrat.
This expansion of capitalist interests, in conjunction with U.S. power, included elevating religious extremists across Asia, such as Islamists, in a time when much of the so-called Muslim world was trending either communist or at the very least, secular nationalist like in Egypt. We shouldn’t also forget the countless rightwing coups and assassinations that the U.S. participated in, from the killing of Patrice Lamumba in the Congo, to the support of death squads in central America, a major part of the Reagan administration’s foreign policy agenda.
There is a sea of death and destruction our capitalist class and foreign policy officials have been complicit in, and have never ever paid any consequence for. Russia, rightly so, is under sanctions currently for its invasion of Ukraine. Yet, the U.S., whose crimes outweigh Russia’s and for that matter, other countries too, has never been sanctioned, or faced any kind of economic or political retribution in the eyes of the world for what it’s done and continues to do, from its current support of Saudi killing in Yemen, to its backing of Israeli apartheid.
Although times have changed and there has been more space for a critique of the U.S. foreign policy agenda, one would have to be naive to believe that this critique has somehow been sufficient. The U.S. continues to have over 800 military bases scattered across the globe with no other major country coming close. It continues to pursue an agenda antithetical to the needs and interests of most people, especially those who are working class and poor in the U.S., let alone in Asia, Latin America and Africa. It very much continues to get away with crime after crime after crime, after crime.
Therefore, the U.S. left, stunningly, must do its duty and focus its efforts on what the U.S. foreign policy apparatus does, and has done, in terms of addressing its inordinate power and influence. And this would include seeking leaders who would be anti-NATO, a U.S. political creation designed to maintain U.S. influence and power, and the influence and power of U.S. allies, who have done much to cause harm, from supporting Portuguese colonialism, to supporting South African apartheid, to the invasion of Libya which has now allowed for extremist to have taken over the country, to currently supporting a Ukrainian government that includes fascist forces, openly displaying Nazi insignia as they receive awards.
There is no socialism without an internationalism that attacks capital
Whether it’s being built now, or in the near future, if we want socialism in the U.S. to succeed, we will need to defeat it as part of an international coalition. The U.S., once again, is the representative and main force defending global capitalism. If there were to be a socialist revolution, or a nominally socialist candidate elected into power, or a Congress finally controlled by more progressive forces eager for more redistributive policies, we would need a worldwide coalition of socialists, Marxists, and progressives joining our struggle, viewing our own struggle as their own. Why?
First of all, the capitalists class in the U.S. would do what the French capitalist class had done when Francois Mitterand had been elected in the early 1980s, which was to disinvest and possibly go elsewhere. With a world dominated by capitalist interests, who’ve been dependent on U.S. power and have called upon U.S. power to defend them, it is rather effortless for our own capitalists to migrate, and find some kind of refuge somewhere, all the while causing our own economy to hemorrhage. What would make this more difficult is for leftists and progressive forces across the globe working with us to prevent this capitalist strike from taking effect.
Now, Maisano is correct in stating we can’t push allies. It is one of his points on why we should be hesitant on compelling DSA-affiliated elected leaders to be so anti-NATO. I agree with this. We do need allies. Socialism in one country can only ever truly be safe when the entire globe has become socialist.
That said, the allies we need in the U.S., as socialists and progressives, for socialism to take root here and everywhere, are those who’ve been impacted by the U.S. empire across the globe. As mentioned already, the U.S. and its ghouls worldwide have been responsible for the repression of socialists, communists, social democrats, and progressives everywhere, which has often meant the repression of policies that would’ve lifted up the world’s majority into a position of dignity and joy. Most of the world remembers this legacy, and its continuation. Hence, why we see hesitation on the part of most African, Asian and Latin American countries in supporting the U.S. and NATO in funding the Ukrainians. This is why we see countries like Brazil, once more led by Lula and the PT, doing all it can to avoid being dragged deeper into this conflict and rather, seeking a more peaceful resolution to the war.
If we take on an anti-NATO stance, this would appeal to a large section of the world’s population, including socialists and leftists. This would be one step in developing goodwill and political relationships with many of the political parties on the left that exist beyond the slice of Europe that Maisano refers to. This would be developing ties with possibly a growing majority of the world instead, a majority of the world that’s been left frustrated and broken from generations of U.S.-led hegemony, a world of people left to fend for themselves while the capitalist, home and broad, and their minions, from Islamists to Hindutva supporters, from anti-communist liberals to conservative theocrats to sections of the working class that are willing to kill their brethren based on nationalism, have festered and grown fat.
Whether it’s Venezuelans struggling from decades of U.S. sanctions, or Palestinians surviving another “mowing the lawn” by Israel, or its populations across central America, across southern Africa, an anti-NATO line, connected to a broader anti-U.S. empire agenda shall be a way forward in coalescing the international coalition that we and the world would need.
Context matters
It is true that not all U.S. interventions are the same. For instance, I supported the U.S. backing Kurdish forces in Rojava against the extremist ISIS attacks. The Kurdish-militants were an explicitly left-wing force, staving off an explicitly right wing and devastating one. Furthermore, the situation never devolved into a possible nuclear war, nor dragged in multiple powerful nations in for a proxy war instead.
This is what has happened with Ukraine. At this point in the war, we have right-wing forces on both sides, digging their heels in. On the Ukrainian side, nationalist elements have been elevated over critical left-wing voices. Zelensky himself has veered closer to the right, even going so far as to align himself more explicitly with other right-wing countries, such as Israel. Other right-wing run nations have also expressed support for Ukraine, including Poland, which has become yet another nation sinking deep into a politics of right-wing nationalism and anti-Muslim rhetoric, not to mention traditionalist patriarchalism. The same, of course, has been the case within Russia, with Russia itself arresting thousands of anti-war demonstrators who have bravely gone against Putin’s war.
Currently, the U.S. has sent deadly cluster bombs, escalating the war. Some have been worried over nuclear weapons someday being used, which again wasn’t something to worry over in regards to Rojava.
Overall, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a combination of Putin’s hubris and NATO encroachment, has remained a proxy war, continuing to plunge the region into further chaos and destabilization. In a broader context as well, the war has been weaponized by war hawks inside the U.S., as well as part of a larger campaign to situate the U.S. as the defender of the so-called rules based international order (rich coming from an empire that’s destroyed much of the world through greed and the elevation of anti-egalitarian forces) against countries like China as well.
All in all, we must support the anti-war protestors and left-wing anti-Putin forces in Russia, and leftwing forces in Ukraine facing off against its nationalists as well (and this could include support for weapons distributed to left-wing forces in Ukraine). But this cannot include support for NATO, a right-wing, pro-U.S. force, which would only strengthen the U.S empire, and its allies throughout the world. This cannot also include supporting either Zelensky nor Putin.
Admittedly, I do not have all the answers as to how best we move forward, apart from demanding that our elected leaders endorsed by the DSA to vociferously be against NATO, an organization that was founded as a front for Western powers, and to build deeper relationships with genuinely left-wing forces inside Ukraine and Russia, forces we could support without aiding U.S. imperialism, or right-wing elements on the ground.
Once again, I respect Maisano’s positions and anyone else on the left who may not entirely agree with what I’ve just written. I do hope we continue to engage with one another in a positive and productive manner.
But to reiterate: NATO is an extension of U.S. power and U.S. power has been world-damaging and has never faced consequences, much like other countries have (sanctions, etc.). The war in Ukraine has devolved into a dangerous situation for the globe. We must, as DSA, wrangle with international issues if we are to be serious about ourselves as socialists.
