On July 4, the “leftists” took to the streets of Philadelphia to protest the occupation of Iraq and to denounce the government’s violation of the sacred U.S. Constitution. Or rather, the violation by the class interests that gave birth to that Constitution in the first place.

The modern trend toward fascism and imperialism is nothing more than the culmination of a process that, since the first bourgeois revolutions, has been inexorably imposed by the capitalist economy—an economy that has always required the bourgeois state to intervene with coercive force as profits grow and the points of crisis and class struggle multiply. In reality, the U.S. Constitution itself—so celebrated for its mythical egalitarian content—was also drafted with the aim of centralizing the army of capital to crush rebellions against its rule, such as the “Shay’s Rebellion” of 1786–1787, which is well known but rarely discussed. Now that the obscene, bloated mass of capital is shedding its last vestiges of democracy, we Marxists need only point out that the shenanigans of the Bush gang (which are no different from those of any other administration, since real power in Washington is certainly not entrusted to just a few men) are entirely in keeping with the spirit, if not the letter, of the document drafted by the “Founding Fathers.”

As the economy sinks into crisis, the modern solution is being pushed: increased state intervention. If the blame for all the troubles has fallen on the heads of a handful of brazen corporate executives, if the Enron and WorldCom scandals are held up as new heights of financial crime (in which the heroic Bush is deeply implicated), this serves to overshadow the general cycle of massive profits followed by devastating crises, which lead to war and further profits and further crises—a cycle in which capital is trapped, regardless of the petty “ethics” of its individual officials.

Today, the armies of the bourgeois regime must scour the globe if capitalism is to survive. Iraq was the natural candidate for the second target in the so-called War on Terror, the latest manifestation of imperialist expansionism, which is as hypocritical as it is vague.

With the war, another word resurfaces: Liberation! A liberation at gunpoint—a long-standing tradition of modern bourgeois cynicism. Even professional philanthropists, roused by the clamor of United Nations conferences, bow their heads before such a noble cause. However ridiculous the rhetoric of the puppet Bush and his sub-puppet Blair may be, the propaganda machine is so well-oiled and pushed to its limits that it seems to be driving the majority of the American working class to support the Coalition’s aims.

Nevertheless, there is growing discontent over the fact that Coalition soldiers—mostly Americans—have been killed every day since the U.S. government declared “major combat operations” over.

Although there is no compulsory conscription, military service is not as entirely voluntary as is claimed. Recruitment into the U.S. Army is carried out using methods that have led it to be called “the poor man’s draft”; working-class youth are drawn into the army with the promise of having their education paid for or at least receiving pay that is somewhat better than any other job available to them. For many, it is their only chance at a job. One of the major recruitment areas is Puerto Rico, where per capita income is less than half that of Mississippi, the poorest state in the Union. Furthermore, military recruitment campaigns are predominantly targeted at working-class communities of color. Some self-proclaimed experts paraded by the media have pointed out the unfairness of this, pontificating that conscription should be organized to recruit from all classes of society!

There are initiatives, such as the “GI Rights Hotline”—which we might translate as the “soldier’s rights hotline”—whose purpose is to help recruits who want to get out. There have been sporadic acts of resistance by individual soldiers, but to date there has been no collective action. Dissatisfaction, however, is growing within the units, especially following the military’s announcement that soldiers will be kept in Iraq longer due to the increased attacks they are facing.

On the eve of the Iraq War, the common slogan of the American left was “Inspections, Not War!”, confirming the de facto alliance of the anti-war front with imperialism. Opportunists, even if they oppose American imperialism, maintain a loyal opposition to global capital as a whole, this time siding with the governments of France, Germany, Russia, and others—and above all with the UN, that despicable cabal of imperialist states, where those monsters go to cloak themselves in a human mask. The American “left,” with the blessing of Hollywood celebrities and pop stars, has gone to great lengths to proclaim that it, too, is patriotic, that it is doing only what it believes is best for its great nation! It represents the interests of a minority of the American bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, who are watching with apprehension the gradual dissolution of the old “free world” alliance of the Cold War.

Now that the war is over (or so they say), there is little left for them to do but accuse Bush and make a huge scandal out of the false intelligence used to officially justify the war. “If only we had a more responsible president!” Thus, these so-called dissidents—always ready to flaunt their “heroic” stances against state tyranny—are fully integrated into the system and will help fill the ballot boxes next year.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has once again committed itself to the so-called peace process in Palestine. But this commitment could become entirely nominal if Israel were to cease being the U.S.’s central stronghold in the Middle East.

Perhaps more significant are the recent efforts in Africa. Bush has been crisscrossing the continent with a rediscovered—and convenient—humanitarianism. Aside from the bad omens regarding Iraq, what respectable champion of “human rights” and “freedom,” with the tender ideals of a liberal benefactor, could deny that armed intervention in Liberia is a just cause? As with his previous crocodile tears over Auschwitz, Bush has condemned the sin of slavery committed by his predecessors—like a murderer going to confession, not to seek absolution for a past murder, but to obtain permission to commit another.

It is obvious to anyone even slightly familiar with recent American history why the U.S. regime has set its sights on Africa, when it had previously ignored the conflicts that have ravaged the continent’s countries for years. One clear reason is the need for oil, which some African countries have in abundance: in fact, the U.S. already sources 18% of its oil from Nigeria, Angola, and Gabon, with major investments pouring into Equatorial Guinea to expand its abundant oil production in the near future.

More generally, however, American capital needs new markets in the face of a European Union that is consolidating its power and threatening to become a major imperialist rival to the U.S. and its allies. Bush’s tirades against the EU in May over its resistance to biotechnology and the U.S. government’s request to the WTO to intervene are emblematic of a growing animosity between the powers. Thus, just as EU officials cite the potentially harmful effects of biotechnology to justify their opposition, so Bush invokes African famines to argue for the need for genetically modified crops. Ultimately, both of these arguments serve as propaganda in the looming trade battle.

Soon the U.S. military will carry out its intervention in Liberia, under the pretext of ending the violence and imposing yet another plan of liberation. Liberia could serve as a useful bridgehead for American imperialist influence, while the U.S. promises to use further noble causes—such as famines or the AIDS crisis—as means to extend its tentacles across the continent.

In making these observations, let it be clear that we communists are certainly not indifferent to the conflicts and disasters that periodically plague the world. Nor do we lack solidarity with the victims of these events. However, the massive armed forces deployed today by the world’s major bourgeois states are exclusively for the protection and expansion of capital. Capitalism, in carrying out its plans, intervenes with the police forces of its states in those devastated lands, proclaiming its humanitarianism. While it may temporarily alleviate some problems, it is first and foremost capital itself—with its inevitable crises and conflicts—that fuels these horrors, which will continue until the revolutionary proletariat deals the deathblow to this monstrous system.

Today we can only observe the tragic irony of the U.S. regime—the very same regime that installs openly murderous regimes around the world (such as that of Equatorial Guinea, right on the African continent), that has exacerbated the AIDS crisis in Africa by prohibiting the production of generic AIDS medications, and that claims to be humanitarian only when there is a profit to be made.

We, of course, neither expect nor demand that it behave any differently. Only through the violent elimination of the bourgeois state can we put an end to the atrocities that are inseparable from its existence.

In October 2002, the regime responded to the dispute involving the West Coast longshoremen with the Taft-Hartley Act—called by some the “Labor Slavery Act”—which, among other things, prohibits general strikes, sit-down strikes, and “secondary boycotts” (when a union compels a company to cease doing business with another, in solidarity with the struggle of that company’s employees), leaves employers under no obligation to negotiate with unions, and allows the president to intervene in labor disputes deemed threats to the national interest. The invocation of this law is both a sign of the economic crisis and a reminder to all American workers whose interests the bourgeois state serves—even to the point of dictatorial force if necessary.

The dockworkers ultimately secured a new contract, but the reasons for decisive strike action remain.

Attacks on workers continue at struggling airlines, which are threatening layoffs due to bankruptcy if their unions do not accept massive wage cuts. But the result has been that, even though the unions “cooperated,” the layoffs went ahead anyway. US Airways used the war in Iraq—just as it had used the September 11 attacks—as an excuse to impose pay cuts on its workers and carry out more than 3,000 layoffs. American Airlines forced the flight attendants’ and pilots’ unions to accept a similar agreement allowing for 3,000 layoffs and substantial pay cuts, while at the same time company executives received pay raises. After months of negotiations, the unions gave in, and the layoffs began in early July.

The bureaucrats of the IAM (International Association of Machinists), which organizes technicians and baggage handlers at US Airways and United Airlines, have lost the workers’ trust by siding with the bosses. In one instance, the IAM signed an agreement with United Airlines in Indianapolis to allow the closure of its local maintenance center, even though a union contract prohibited it. As a result, in June the technicians voted to end their 58-year membership in the IAM and join the AMFA (Aircraft Maintenance Fraternal Association), a relatively small union outside the AFL-CIO with a reputation for being more combative. The advantages of the AMFA include transparency in negotiations, rank-and-file control over officials, and the fact that it has already secured the best contract in that industry sector for Northwest Airlines technicians.

But more than anything else, workers in the aviation industry are realizing that the economic crisis and corporate bankruptcies are consequences of the current social system, and they reject the employers’ argument that workers’ misery is caused precisely by their resistance to exploitation.

A notable independent labor movement that has emerged in recent years is the “Immokalee Workers Coalition” (CIW). The CIW unites agricultural workers in the state of Florida—who are largely Haitians, Latin Americans, and indigenous people who have immigrated from Central America—who receive meager wages for grueling work. The CIW has recently gained attention for its campaign against the fast-food chain Taco Bell, which sources tomatoes from a company in Immokalee, Florida. This company pays its workers 40 cents for every 32-pound (14.5 kg) bucket they fill. At this rate, they would have to pick two metric tons of tomatoes a day to earn $50! Taco Bell’s excuse: “The supplier is responsible, not us!” And it continues to source from companies that treat workers like animals. The CIW then launched a campaign to raise tomato pickers’ pay by one cent per pound, resorting to both work stoppages and a national boycott. Although the CIW’s final victory is still to come, demonstrations in support of Florida’s tomato pickers have taken place across the country, and students at six universities have forced the closure of Taco Bell restaurants. But more importantly, widespread awareness of the issue has been raised, and many farmworkers have begun to express solidarity with the CIW’s struggle.

In general, workers across all sectors are facing a ruthless bourgeois offensive, with government-backed cuts to health care and pensions and a general increase in the workweek. Meanwhile, ten million workers are unemployed, and the number is rising.

The leadership of the AFL-CIO, the umbrella confederation covering the vast majority of American unions, limits itself to blaming Bush for the economic crisis and supporting the Democrats, rather than encouraging a determined labor movement capable of achieving results for the working class. However, the AFL-CIO—long a stronghold of pro-establishment unions—refuses to accept certain emerging unions, such as the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union (HERE), which is vigorously organizing thousands of workers and leading the growing trend among many unions to organize outside the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This imposes a statutory moratorium on negotiations before strike elections can be held, which gives employers plenty of time to intimidate or get rid of workers who support the union and to bombard workers with anti-union propaganda. The growing dissatisfaction with the NLRB and the turn toward extra-legal methods of struggle is a positive step toward a “red” labor movement. The problem is that successfully organizing outside the NLRB requires workers to have other resources with which to fight, such as strong support from workers in related industries and the local working-class community.

The few examples of union struggles cited here are certainly inadequate and by no means exhaustive; they are intended only to give an idea of developments in what is the most massive bastion global capital has ever had. The current period of recession is also witnessing an intense attack on the working class in America, to which it is attempting to react and resist. The illusions of security and well-being, which for a long time kept U.S. workers complacent, have already been shattered for the majority of them, as the capitalist crisis reveals the inescapable precariousness of the proletarian condition, as well as its only way out: the communist revolution.