Almost nowhere in the United States is the class struggle sharper, or more one-sided, than in Atlanta, Georgia. And almost nowhere can the dynamics of race in that class struggle be more clearly seen. This has been true for years. In 2018, the Guardian devoted a week of coverage to the city, laying out in great detail a situation which was, even then, remarkably bad. The passage of five years, with the pandemic and the political unrest those years brought, have only made things worse.

Atlanta’s population in 2019 was 51% Black. By the following year, that number had fallen to 47%.  This was the first time in its modern history the city did not have a Black majority. In January of 2019, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the city was $1,868. By January of 2023, that had gone up to $2,212. The national average rent over the same period increased from $1,465 in 2019 to $1,900 in early 2023, placing Atlanta well ahead of the national curve for the period. These numbers clearly show a city that is rapidly becoming both whiter and more expensive.

This process is known as gentrification, of course, and it has arguably been the primary contradiction faced by the U.S. working class over the last several decades. In Atlanta, several factors have come together to create a situation that surpasses the scale and scope of the problem elsewhere. The most obvious of these, as a driver of the increasing whiteness and costliness of the city, has been the relocation of much of the U.S. film and television industry to Atlanta. Hollywood has come to town, and both the city and the state have rolled out a red carpet worthy of the gaudiest, most decadent film premier.

In the period 2019-2020, Georgia was home to an estimated total of 641 film and television productions, which brought over $5 billion into the state.  The vast majority of these productions were and are based in Atlanta. And what led them all here was simple: money. Georgia, from 2008 onward, has offered the industry heavy incentives in the form of tax rebates and other enticements. And the local government has allowed the influx of film industry people to essentially colonize the city. No effort has been made to protect longtime residents from the economic impact of a tidal wave of rich Californians and New Yorkers crashing into the place. Quite the opposite, in fact. The city has declared class war on its poorest people and their neighborhoods. And the army that fights that war is the Atlanta Police Department.

An excellent case in point comes from a neighborhood known as the Old Fourth Ward, which sits east of downtown. This was Dr. King’s neighborhood, and he and his wife are buried there. It is also rapidly being transformed into precisely the kind of petty bourgeois Potemkin village that has sprung up all over the city, to house and amuse the white gentry. Gated communities of condos or townhouses that come with game rooms and gyms, dog parks and pools, surrounded by upscale restaurants and shops to soak up the residents’ spending money. Many of these also feature a “market,” essentially a high-end mall food court minus the mall, of which there are many throughout the city. The one in the Old Fourth Ward is called the Krog Street Market. To go there on a weekend evening is to stumble into a stereotypical yuppie’s wildest dreams. Throngs of white people peppered with a few darker faces, all of them frolicking in their artificial paradise, dropping fistfuls of cash. What one does not see is any poor people, and very few Black people, who are not at work. This is one of Atlanta’s most historic working class Black neighborhoods.

The question is how the Old Fourth Ward got this way. We are fortunate to have a firsthand account from a former Atlanta police officer who, disgusted by what he was ordered to do and why, not only quit over it but went to the media. This was Tom Gissler, which may not be his real name. According to Gissler, in 2020, after three years on the force, he was given very specific instructions by his superiors: target the people living in an Old Fourth Ward complex called Bedford Pines Apartments, which is privately owned public housing. Gissler’s orders were explicit: get the people living there on anything you can, parking violations, old warrants, petty drug charges, whatever. Let nothing slide. According to Gissler these orders were unusual:

It made me very curious. So on my own time…I drove over there and…was like: “Hey, this is what I’m being asked to do. Why do you think that is? What’s going on?”

A homeowner in the area was very frank with me. He said the guys who own Bedford Pines got their tax bill last year, and their taxes were assessed based on all the gentrification that’s happening in the area. And so they wanted to move everybody out of these apartments and knock ’em down and rebuild these nice expensive apartments and the government said no. And so then they said, “Well, that’s ok, we’ll just increase the rent.” They tried to increase the rent and the Section 8 guys came back out and said, “No, you can’t do that either.”

The only way you can evict or do anything like that is if the person who [lives in] the apartment is convicted of a felony. So the Bedford Pines guys just went to the police department and said: “We want you to police in here, and we’re going to give you a section of Bedford Pines to actually have office space. And I want you to lock up as many people as possible so we can make these apartments vacant and we can knock ’em down.”

I go to my supervisors: Is this what the case is? And they looked at me like, what are you, stupid? Of course, why else would we be doing this?

The pattern of aggressive policing to drive out working class Black residents that Gissler witnessed in the Old Fourth Ward has been carried out in neighborhoods around the city. Summerhill, Peoplestown, Pittsburgh, the Bluff; the list is long and growing. Once the original residents are mostly gone, the city and their preferred developers move in and buy up whole blocks. These are then leased out to white hipster capitalists, who renovate the buildings and open their foodie restaurants, their breweries and cafés, their boutiques and yoga studios. Fast forward two years and the high-end yuppies start to move in. They displace the hipsters, and the whole grim circus rolls on to the next neighborhood. And if, somewhere along the way local residents become frustrated enough to protest or otherwise object, the police come back, make more arrests and bust whatever heads catch their eye. Many of the city’s numerous gang prosecutions are rooted in this process.

This has gone on in Atlanta for years, at least as far back as the preparations for the 1996 Olympics. It might appear, from the outside, to be strange. Atlanta is a Black-controlled city, after all. The offices of mayor, police chief and city council have been mostly occupied by Black people since the 1970s. The city has long been held up as the most successful, practical, capitalist answer to the demands of ’60s radicals for Black power. And yet the policies that slowly eroded that Black majority have been relentlessly pursued. One might be tempted to conclude, on this basis, that the primary contradiction in Atlanta is class rather than race. As we shall see later on, this is not really the case, though class does play such an outsized role in the political economy of race in the city that the two are difficult to separate.

The best guides through this terrain are E. Franklin Frazier’s 1955 book The Black Bourgeoisie, Charles Hamilton and Kwame Ture’s 1967 work Black Power, and the work of the late Glen Ford on the concept of the “Black misleadership class.” The short version is that the Black political leadership in Atlanta employs a rhetoric crafted to appeal to their working class constituents, while their policies advance other interests. Viewed through this lens, the situation becomes more clear.

Things in Atlanta would likely have continued this way until the remaking of the city was complete, if not for 2020. That year, the covid pandemic collided with outrage at the police murder of George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, and many others. There was a serious uprising in Atlanta. It was in the aftermath of that uprising that a proposal was put forward which had, as its stated goal and purpose, rewarding the police after a long hot summer. The centerpiece of that proposal was a massive, new, state-of-the-art police training facility.

This announcement was years in the making. Research on “what a training center would look like and what it would cost” began as early as 2015. By January 2021, after months of reactionary media coverage about crime waves and low police morale, conditions were ripe. The mayor at that time, Keisha Lance Bottoms, rolled out “One Atlanta: One APD,” a multi-pronged plan to “bolster police presence, training, and morale.” The plan called for the expansion of the city’s already vast surveillance network, the targeting of “nuisance properties” such as bars and nightclubs with increased force, and the forming of partnerships with the FBI and local sheriffs to “put more officers on the street.” 

Lance Bottoms’ plan further promised to “explore a public safety training academy that expands recruitment classes and ensures that police officers and firefighters have high-quality facilities and training.” On April 1, 2021 plans for the training academy were finally revealed. The $90 million project, to be constructed on a parcel of forested land in neighboring Dekalb County, was to include housing for police academy trainees, many shooting ranges, an explosives testing and training site, and large a mock city for urban warfare and counterinsurgency training. It was this last feature that led opponents of the project to give it the name which stuck: Cop City.

Opportunism from the White “Left”

Right Opportunism 

The proposal to construct Cop City was met with harsh criticism and resistance from around Atlanta. An eclectic coalition of neighborhood associations, police/prison abolition groups, environmentalists, liberals, democratic-socialists, and anarchists began to come together. Soon they had a slogan: Stop Cop City.

Activists focused their efforts on mobilizing community pressure on the City Council to vote the proposal down. They canvassed neighborhoods, circulated petitions, held rallies, marches, and town hall meetings. As opposition to the plan grew, the city made a few calculated concessions. The 150-acre project was scaled back to 85 acres, and provisions were added to plant 100 hardwoods for every tree removed during construction. Meanwhile, the official city council vote on the project was twice delayed by allegations that the “listening sessions” being held to gather community feedback were a sham. Eventually, the Council set up a phone line that people could call to make a short recording of whatever they had to say. This resulted in 17 hours worth of audio, about 70% of which was firmly against the project. Nevertheless, on the evening of September 8, 2021, the City Council voted to greenlight Cop City by a margin of 10-4, swatting away four months of mobilization like a gnat.

This was of course predictable, and indeed it was predicted. A member of the Democratic Socialists of America’s local Steering Committee, told a reporter at an August protest outside City Hall, that DSA thought the measure would pass. “We just believe that Councilwoman Shephard isn’t actually listening to her own constituents, and she is doing what she wants to do to support the Atlanta Police Foundation’s funders.” For some organizers, the obstinance of local officials was more than just likely, it was necessary. A former member of a local organization called Defund Atlanta Police Department, Refund Communities (DARC), Jesse Pratt López, stated in a recent interview that the defeat came as no surprise. It was, in fact, the very reaction the coalition had built their strategy around. According to Pratt López, the goal was to radicalize the masses by leading them through a futile civic exercise, thereby catalyzing a more militant movement against the project. Following the vote, however, rather than picking up steam the first iteration of the movement to Stop Cop City began to fissure.

Within days of the city council vote, DARC itself would dissolve. Its last act was the publication of an open letter, endorsed by a majority of active members, explaining the reasons for this dissolution. The letter describes a pattern of chauvinism and anti-Blackness in a movement riddled with internal contradictions. It begins: “In early September, our abolitionist group…informally dissolved after multiple white and non-Black organizers in DARC and Atlanta DSA completely eroded the trust and confidence of Black comrades in DARC. These same organizers harmed DARC’s relationship with other coalition groups that collaborated on the #StopCopCity campaign.” The letter goes on to allege that DSA’s leadership used the movement and the moment to advance their own goals: “While the campaign began as a horizontal movement-building project, it became clear that Atlanta DSA sought oversight and control (financially and structurally).” The DSA, according to DARC, saw the campaign against Cop City primarily as a way to recruit people into their own formation, and attempted to take over the coalition’s messaging and strategy. A text message from a member of the local DSA Steering Committee, sent the week of the council vote and published with the open letter, reveals them advising others to use this period of “peak attention” to “try to absorb as many people into DSA as possible, win or lose.”  

DARC’s letter helps explain the tactic of lobbying the City Council to vote the project down while knowing damn well they would not. The notion that working class Atlantans, people who live their entire lives in the trenches of the city’s class war, require a civics lesson to be radicalized is self-evidently chauvinistic. Such a plan coming from a broad, predominantly Black, coalition of locals makes no sense; but coming from a clique of mostly white, petty bourgeois electoralists, it does. DSA appears to have been more interested in growing their organization than winning a fight they always expected to lose. In pursuit of that goal, it strong-armed its way to the front of a movement of working class Black people, maligning and alienating fellow organizers as it went.

It is no surprise to see DSA, in this particular case and as a broader organization, move this way. It is an instrument, not of the working class, but rather of, by, and for petty bourgeois opportunists. Born out of the work of Michael Harrington, himself a petty bourgeois opportunist, amid the pervasive anticommunism of the Cold War, the DSA was formed in the early 1980s by a merger of two smaller social-democrat formations. Then as now, DSA’s entire reason for existence is to be a place for liberals who want to go further than the Democratic Party, but not “too far,” i.e.: not toward outright, mature communism. Its theoretical framework is derived largely from the work of Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, two bourgeois collaborators who were soundly refuted by Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg over a century ago.

Even the group’s name gives this away, speaking as it does, as Kautsky did, of “democracy” without going the necessary further step to ask: democracy for which class? The group has never, at any point, revealed an accurate understanding that everything in class society has a definite class character, and that which is not explicitly proletarian is bourgeois, because it derives from the culture and ideology of the bourgeoisie. As such, the DSA’s attempt to collage together a form of socialism that the bourgeois state will tolerate is doomed from the start, because this can only be accomplished by leaving the essence of Marxism, its scientific revolutionary character, behind. The end result can only be a reformist, radical liberalism at best, though more frequently such formations function, objectively, as agents of the bourgeoisie. The only real question being whether they are themselves aware of this or not.

Opportunism of this type arises in tandem with imperialism, as a fraction of imperialist superprofits are tossed to a section of the working class like so many crumbs. It emerged in the context of the First World War, which the opportunists supported in collaboration with their national bourgeois, in defiance of a revolutionary understanding of that war as an essentially imperialist project. In the heat of this controversy, Lenin defined opportunism simply as “an alliance between sections of the workers and the bourgeoisie, directed against the mass of the proletariat.” DSA’s actions in Atlanta clearly demonstrate the accuracy of this definition. They attempted nothing but the advance of their own short-term interests over those of the majority Black proletariat of Atlanta. And they accomplished nothing but furthering the bourgeoisie’s goal of building Cop City, in that they seriously damaged the working class resistance to the project in the city.

Left Opportunism 

It is within this context of a working class movement undermined by opportunism that anarchists entered the scene in a significant way. Early in 2022, a nebulous group of individuals calling themselves “forest defenders” moved into the South River Forest, site of the proposed facility. They began setting up camps and erecting “tree-sits.” Their intention was to physically occupy the forest, thereby preventing work on Cop City from beginning. It is unclear how the decision to pursue this particular tactic, which has been employed many times with very little success, was made. In many reports, the forest defenders describe themselves as a “decentralized, autonomous movement [where] nobody is in charge, and nobody is responsible for anybody else’s actions,” so it’s unlikely we will ever get an answer to that question.  

The camp was in a state of perpetual flux, with people constantly coming and going, but reports indicate that somewhere between 40-100 activists were ensconced in the trees throughout 2022. They practiced yoga, planted gardens, held religious ceremonies, and of course engaged in minor vandalism of construction equipment. Their strategy was to make themselves “an immovable obstacle to any construction” while allies outside of the forest went to court and pressured construction companies in an effort to end the project before it began. And when, as they sometimes did, work crews tried to start clearing the forest despite all this, those in the camp “put their bodies on the line, climbing into trees to prevent them from being felled.”

The risks involved with such tactics hardly need to be explained. The police were called in very quickly and there were frequent altercations, which became increasingly violent as the year went on. During a May confrontation, police claimed a forest defender threw a Molotov cocktail at an officer. In a December raid on the encampment, police used tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets on activists in the trees. Yet for all of this, the approach to operational security in the camp was incoherent at best. When speaking to the media, as they often did, forest defenders concealed their identities, distorted their voices and used aliases like Twig and Rutabaga. This gives the impression that, on some level, they understood how vulnerable they were. But rather than regimenting security given the clear threat of police violence, they left fundamental things such as scouting and keeping watch to be taken up by anyone on a spontaneous, voluntary basis, for reasons which were purely ideological.

Arguably more important security concerns, such as the fact that police would surely attempt to infiltrate the camp, do not appear to have been considered at all. On their numerous social media accounts and websites, forest defenders repeatedly sent out open calls to the public: all were welcome, no questions asked. A June 2, 2022 communique posted to the website Scenes from the Atlanta Forest reads:

We are welcoming ALL the tactics. Kate Bush flash mob when kkkops arrive? Fuck yeah. Frontline Action to stop machines of destruction? Fuck yeah. Please just get your sweet fucking feral ass down here.

Your house sitting gig & coffee shop job can wait– come occupy the forest, & if you got privilege, use it to throw down, as trees, community members & non-human animals are better than a clear cut lot with a militarized police training center.

The stakes are high & the forest is calling!

Come for the blackberries & community, & stay for the chaos!

Setting aside the condescension toward workers who, with bills and babies, must have jobs that absolutely cannot and will not wait, there are serious problems here. The “act first, ask questions later” ideology permeates the forest defenders’ entire internet footprint. One of their Instagram pages features a buffet of organizing tactics: phone zaps, rallies, marches, mutual aid, and teach-ins. These are peppered with more urgent calls to direct action. One such post, from January 25, 2022, reads in bold red and black font: “We need folks on the ground to stop bulldozing happening by the ponds by the Old Atlanta Prison Farm. Most of the entrances have cops. Risk of police encounter is medium-high, be smart. Be alert.” Another post, from May 4, 2022 reads “Police are entering the Weelaunee Forest in large numbers to remove forest defenders. Please come help now!”

One needn’t be a seasoned organizer to understand how reckless this is. To put out a mass call to action, on the internet, insisting that anyone who reads it charge immediately into the woods, flinging their bodies in front of a brigade of heavily armed cops and bulldozers is astonishing. The best it can do is halt construction at that particular moment, a victory so temporary as to be essentially Pyrrhic. At worst, it leaves everyone who turns up totally vulnerable to police violence, with no means of self defense and without the requisite knowledge of the terrain to even flee. It boggles the mind that activists, so diligent in concealing their identities from the readers of Rolling Stone or Vice, could have such a cavalier attitude about the various dangers posed by police. Eventually, this would have literally fatal consequences.

On the morning of Wednesday, January 18, 2023, gunfire rang out in the forest. Police encircled the camp and ambushed, opening fire on Manuel Terán, known in the camp as Tortuguita a.k.a. Tort. They were shot at least 13 times, killing them as they emerged from a tent. A sheriff’s deputy was shot as well, and while police claim that Terán shot first, everyone on the scene except the cops have disputed this from the start. For weeks, police denied that there was any body camera footage from the incident; but such cameras were clearly visible on APD officers in news reports and the recordings were eventually released. They reveal a cluster of suppressed, high caliber military weapons opening up almost in unison, with no preceding, small caliber fire such as might have come from the legal, registered pistol which Terán owned. Later in the video an APD officer is seen asking someone off-camera, “You fucked up your own officer?” and receiving a grunted, affirmative reply.

What happened that day is as clear as it will likely ever be, though important questions remain. Did the police know beforehand that Terán had a gun and target them on that basis? If so, how did the cops come by that information? How were police able to encircle the camp that morning without being detected? Why were there no lookouts when everyone knew this was coming eventually and even one minute’s warning would likely have kept everyone in the camp alive? Because the only real feature of the “autonomous, nonhierarchical” form of mobilization that prevailed in the forest is that “no one is in charge and no one is responsible for anyone else,” there is no one to even ask such questions, leaving only silence regarding the entirely needless death of a brave, committed person.

Rather than pausing to reevaluate their strategy after this catastrophic turn of events, anarchists immediately resorted to reckless mobilization once again. The Saturday after Terán’s murder, a vigil in their honor was used as cover for a small-scale riot. A police car was burned, a Wells Fargo vandalized, and 6 more protestors were arrested. #AvengeTort became a trending topic on social media and across the country there were other random acts, ranging from graffiti to attacking office buildings with “stench agents.” What the people involved clearly fail to understand is that mobilization alone, no matter how immediately satisfying to the emotions, will never be enough to halt Cop City or anything else. As Kwame Ture was constantly at pains to point out, mobilization is easy because people instinctively respond to injustice, but “if we’re not careful, we allow mobilization to become an event. The struggle is never an event, it’s a process: a continual, eternal process.” Mobilizations that aren’t tied to a disciplined, organized, working-class base will always fall apart once the heat of feeling fades.

Liberal reformists, petty bourgeois opportunists and custeristic anarchists have spent two years at the center of this struggle. For all of their efforts, they have not made any measurable progress at all, having failed at every turn to convert mobilization into organization. In fact, many of their tactics have proven downright alienating to Atlanta’s working class. This is certainly true of all the tilting at City Council windmills. And it is equally true of the forest camp, where one local resident noticed that “those treehouses are nicer than my fucking apartment.” The erstwhile movement against Cop City seems to be about everything except winning, and therefore it is losing. One activist is dead. Eighteen are facing Domestic Terrorism charges that carry thirty-five year sentences. At time of writing, construction crews are clearing the forest while heavily armed police stand guard at every entrance. And the best the project’s opponents can come up with is a plan to re-occupy the forest the first week of March, to which end they have called, once again, for anyone and everyone to come to Atlanta and go camping with them.

These events are as troubling as they are familiar. Recent history is littered with the wreckage of such mobilizations. From Occupy Wall Street to Standing Rock to Black Lives Matter, all were undone by their insistence on mobilization at the expense of disciplined, militant organization. And for all this, still such methods are widely praised and held up as the future of leftwing politics, which is flatly absurd. The reality is that a truly horizontal organization does not and cannot exist. Friedrich Engels explored this in his 1872 essay, On Authority, concluding that, under bourgeois rule, it is impossible to create an organization in which one’s will is never subordinated to another’s. Even in the most utopian, anti-authoritarian formations, someone’s ideas end up prevailing. And when the idea that prevails is nothing but a refusal to have coherent ideas, it virtually always ends in defeat, with people dead or in prison.

The Atlanta Police Foundation and Ignored Answers 

The movement against Cop City, such as it is, has focused its outrage on various actors at various times. The mayor, the city council, the police, the contractors, and the corporations who have provided funding for the project have all been targeted for everything from protest to graffiti to sabotage. Often overlooked entirely, and rarely correctly analyzed, has been the private, 501(c)3 nonprofit called the Atlanta Police Foundation.

This is a serious error, because the APF is in fact the primary force behind Cop City. It was their idea, they brought it to the mayor, they pushed it through the city council, they have controlled the conversation around the issue, they control the land in question, they are slated to provide the overwhelming majority of the funding for the project and they will apparently operate it if it is eventually built. The question, then, becomes who and what is the APF? Answering that question is of paramount importance, because it reveals not only the interests that want Cop City built, but also maps the real terrain of power in the city of Atlanta.

In seeking an answer to this question, what we do not find is as eloquent as what we do. The APF, as a 501(c)3 organization, is required to file fairly transparent tax documents which subsequently become publicly available. But such records are only available up to and including fiscal 2020, the year before the activity around Cop City begins. So few details pertaining to the project are on the formal record. There are receipts for some of the money, though the source is APF itself and the information must, therefore, be viewed somewhat skeptically. This is relevant, because the records for 2020 show $24.1 million in assets against $16.7 million in liabilities, leaving a balance around $8 million. This is well short of the $60 million the APF has committed to the project. None of the tax records currently available, which go back to the organization’s founding in 2003, show them having anything close to a spare $60 million dollars lying around. So it is clear that a massive amount of money was raised very quickly for the Cop City project.

The information APF has chosen to make available, in a “campaign update” from the third quarter of 2022, lists 24 large donors. Nine of these are foundations, including the project’s two largest single donors. The Woodruff Foundation, endowed from the estate of an early president of Coca-Cola, has contributed $13 million. The James M. Cox Foundation, endowed by the owner of Atlanta’s only major newspaper, gave $10 million. Also on the list are the companies that control gas and electric service in Georgia, two large railroad companies, and then a laundry list of large corporations based or doing substantial business in Atlanta and Georgia more broadly.

For some reason, efforts to problematize the project’s funding have ignored the foundations almost entirely. Some attempts have been made to pressure one or another corporation into withdrawing their support, though at this point only Coca-Cola has been responsive to this pressure. And even then, the victory consisted only in extracting a promise that they would provide no further funding, rather than somehow clawing their prior $1 million “donation” back. Every other corporation involved has simply ignored the pressure.

But the corporations as such are beside the point. They are not the major donors to Cop City. And they are not people, despite the legal sophistry that classifies them as such in the U.S. They are not subject to shame or embarrassment. The investors to whom they ultimately answer might be, at least in theory, but probably not. The corporations and the foundations, along with all the other donors, are advancing the self-identified interests of human beings. If they judge that one way to do that is to give millions of tax-deductible dollars to the APF, then they will. The only language they understand is money, so arguably only a strategy that would escalate the cost of their involvement beyond what they were prepared to spend would have a chance of success. And it seems no such strategy was ever even considered.

The fact of the matter is that money to fund Cop City is simply not a problem the APF has. If one corporation were to drop out, as Coca-Cola appears to have done, it changes nothing. If they all pull out, the APF already has their money, and could simply switch to soliciting money from more foundations and private individuals. More to the point is who the APF is and what it does with the money that comes in. And here the available tax documents are actually useful.

First, the who. APF’s fiscal 2020 documents list some 50 members of the board of directors, 41 of whom hold the mere title of “director.” The other 9 are the foundation’s officers at the time, and even a brief glance at them is very revealing. The president and CEO is one W. David Wilkinson, who has served in that post through the administrations of three successive Atlanta mayors. Wilkinson’s prior work experience consists primarily of 22 years in the U.S. Secret Service. Marshall B. Freeman, the APF’s chief operating officer, is ex-APD, where he was the deputy chief administrative officer. The chief financial officer in 2020 was one Courtney Collins, who came to the APF from the local nonprofit sector, specializing in homelessness, toward which the city is infamously brutal. She has since left the APF, and gone on to work for something called the Atlanta Building Wealth Initiative, which is exactly what it sounds like. APF chairman Robin Loudermilk is a member of one of the oldest, wealthiest families in the entire South, and has a background in high octane real estate speculation. Vice chairman John F. O’neill was formally president of “US Multifamily Capital Markets” at Cushman & Wakefield, a Chicago-based commercial real estate firm with over $9 billion dollars in annual revenue. Calvin Darden, also a vice chairman, was an executive at UPS, and was heavily involved in the building of the city’s yuppie hiking park known as the Beltline. Treasurer Tye Darden has been general counsel for both Georgia-Pacific Railroad and Koch Industries. And finally, secretary Bob Peterson also has a background as a commercial real estate executive. Of these nine officers at the APF, only two are Black.

As for the what, the tax records don’t cover the Cop City project, but the APF’s other programs are nightmarish enough. Taken together, these activities are clearly seen as intended to bring about a kind of new golden age for U.S. police on behalf of those the police serve and protect. For the rest of us, the future the APF is working to bring about can only be described as a chilling, dystopian police state.

Perhaps the most obviously problematic program is what the APF calls OPERATION SHIELD. This is a surveillance network. It consists, not only of the 11,000 cameras that APF has provided to the city, but of virtually every other public and private camera in the entire city. Closed circuit security cameras, Amazon’s Ring cameras, traffic enforcement cameras and others are all linked into a single network that the APD can monitor in real time from their APF-provided Video Integration Center. As an adjunct to SHIELD, the APF has built what they call ComNet, a communications hub linking the APD to private security outfits. These networks are available to any group that cares to pay the subscription fee for access. This means communications between APD and any manner of private security, from the unarmed watchmen of a company like Securitas to the more overtly militarized personnel of a mercenary firm like Blackwater, are perfectly seamless because they are all on the same network.

More subtly troubling is an initiative called SECURE NEIGHBORHOODS. Under this umbrella, the APF purchases real estate in neighborhoods targeted for gentrification. They then bring in contractors to build new housing or renovate existing structures on those lots, and these homes are then sold to APD officers at sub-market prices. The end result, obviously, is that various working class neighborhoods come under full-time surveillance and threat of police intervention, courtesy of their new neighbors. This program has also provided discounted housing for APD recruits at a development called Unity Place, which has room for up to 30 such recruits at a time.

Another, more overtly carceral APF initiative is something they call the Atlanta Repeat Offender Commission. According to the APF’s tax records, in 2014 “the AROC was given authority” to track and issue reports on repeat offenders who, if their cases originated in different jurisdictions, might have received something less than the harshest legal punishment.

And finally we come to the Atlanta Crime Research Center, which APF describes as its “research and analysis arm.” Launched in 2019, the ACRC’s first task was a study of APF’s own Repeat Offender program, which included compiling reports on local judges’ sentencing patterns, no doubt intended to help pressure or remove those who decline to throw the entire book at every such defendant. The language in the tax documents is intentionally vague, stating that the ACRC “is managed by APF but works in concert with local universities and law enforcement partners to develop and analyze content” and conduct various “short- and long-range studies” with the goal of reducing “crime.” It seems reasonable to assume that this entity will be and is being used to identify law enforcement targets, probably using the pseudo-science known as “predictive policing.”

While this is not quite a complete list of the APF’s programs and activities, it is sufficient to outline the nature of the organization’s efforts. These, clearly, are all about expanding the power of the police. The Cop City project is about consolidating that expanded power, giving the police a physical, military-style base from which to operate while moving towards more sophisticated techniques of crowd control and counterinsurgency. Furthermore, it is quite clear that there is very little chance of effective political oversight being exercised by the city government. The city council has fallen over itself in its zeal for the project. And two mayors have now been caught in the project’s undertow. One has seen her political ambition go up in flames, in part, because of the controversy around Cop City, and the other has compromised himself so publicly that it is highly unlikely that he will even seek, let alone win, re-election.

In point of fact, one has to question who actually runs the city of Atlanta, where the real power resides. Mayors come and go and are tossed aside once they can no longer advance the APF’s agenda. City Council members, too. All of these elected officials, most of them Black, put in office by the city’s still large population of mostly Black Democratic Party voters, have a clear record of laboring, not on behalf of their constituents, but rather on behalf of the APF. And as we have seen, the APF’s officers and funding come from a sewer of private and corporate interests that all emerge from a single source: the bourgeoisie.

The Atlanta Police Foundation, then, is best understood not as a slush fund or a shady organization behind the scenes, but rather as a de facto shadow government that actually runs the city on behalf of a mostly white bourgeoisie. And it follows that the local political and civic leadership is not a Black bourgeoisie at all, but a petty bourgeois faction at best, a gang of compradors at worst, always at the service of those with real power. This understanding clarifies the situation around Cop City substantially, and such clarity is something that the movement to stop the facility’s construction has far too often lacked. But not always.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy in this whole sordid tale is that, while mostly white “leftists” of whatever persuasion were offering no analysis of the problem, inventing strategies based on that missing analysis and deriving faulty tactics from that bad strategy, there was an organization in the city that not only could have but was doing all of this better: Community Movement Builders, one of the best grassroots organizations in the city.

CMB is based in a neighborhood known as Pittsburgh, where the APF is currently building three homes under the auspices of its “Secure Neighborhoods” program. The group is loosely modeled on the Black Panther Party’s community outreach programs. They teach adult literacy and political education classes, organize community gardens, host lectures on various topics and otherwise defend the community’s interests. As the struggle against Cop City has progressed, CMB’s involvement has increasingly become showing up to do media damage control for the latest mess their white “comrades” have made. They have done an admirable job of this, somehow managing to not directly criticize their “allies” in public. This says a lot, both about their organizational discipline and the quality of the help they’ve had in the fight.

CMB’s most public face is a movement lawyer and organizer named Kamau Franklin, who has lately been interviewed by a wide variety of liberal/progressive outlets like Democracy Now. He is also a key member of a grassroots platform called Black Power Media, frequently appearing on their morning news program, The Remix Morning Show. Featuring a group of contributors such as Jacqueline Luqman, Dr. Jared Ball, Kalonji Chonga, and Kim Brown, with music by The Ear Doctor, The Remix airs four days a week. It, and Black Power Media more broadly, are the best on-the-ground source for news about Cop City and the class war in Atlanta in general.

Much of this essay has its ultimate roots in regularly watching Black Power Media over the last year and a half. Had any of the variously problematic caucasians discussed above done the same, things might have gone differently. Almost every day since the Cop City project was first announced, someone on BPM has been talking sense about it. This analysis can have no better conclusion than simply quoting them and their analysis of the situation and what must happen from here if the fight against Cop City, or any similar struggle, is to have any chance of success.

Kamau Franklin, speaking to Robert Scheer:

It’s extremely important that people realize that these police foundations are taking off across the country, they’re not accountable to public officials because they are private nonprofits… [Cop City] is basically their facility that they’re renting from the city of Atlanta for $10 a year…for the next 20 or 30 years. So this is completely not going to be scrutinized by the public or answerable through CC hearings. They will train as they see fit, as an agency set up to promote policing…I’m not sure who elected or decided that the APF should play a prominent role in “crime fighting” and or “training” of the police. They’re not elected to do so.

Jacqueline Luqman, Remix Morning Show, the day after the murder in the forest:

I want people to understand that the right wing, the system, the corporatists, the capitalists in this country, they are very patient. They play the long game and they recognize the difference between mobilization and organization. They understood, I think, that the uprisings in 2020 was great mobilization, it was a wonderful, global mobilization. But most of those people did not connect to actual radical anticapitalist, anti-imperialist, socialist organizations to organize for actually changing this system. And they knew that a lot of people, yeah people were responding to the horrible thing, the public lynching of George Floyd, and they were angry in the moment, but most of those people did not want to commit to actually changing their own world view. Most of those people, like I said, great mobilization, but a lot of those people thought well we’re going to change…the police without addressing the need to change this whole system. And that is, I think, the very foundational difference…between mobilization and organization. What should have happened, during that uprising, is that radical organizations should have seen a crazy influx of people saying OK I get it, this capitalist system is the problem, or help me understand how this is a bigger problem than just the police, it’s about an entire system, teach me, let me learn all these things. But can we be real? People in this country don’t want to, largely, change a system that has benefitted them, most of them materially, if they’re not working class and poor, really. And working class and poor people are kept so tired and worn out just trying to survive that the idea of organizing and committing yourself to this other thing is overwhelming for a lot of people. So the system was like: We’ll wait. And we’ll give this nice, a lot of white folks, a little taste of what we’ve been giving the Negroes and the Indigenous for all this time and then they’ll go home. The politicians will make some promises. And then they will think they have done something, when in fact the system just kind of hibernated for a little while during those uprisings, to a certain degree, and they waited til those well-meaning, mostly white folks went back to their regular lives where they don’t have to deal with this every day. Where they’re not interested in overturning capitalism. Where they see no problem with U.S. imperialism and they don’t want to know the connections between domestic racist police terrorism and U.S. militarism abroad, particularly focused and targeted at Africans and the global south. I really want people to understand how absolutely critical and important it is to be in organizations. This is not like a part time gig. It’s really not. Because 24/7 365 days a year our enemy is organizing. They are.

Ajamu Baraka, of Black Alliance for Peace, on the Remix Morning Show: 

This fantasy that Europeans think that they’re gonna be the leaders of some kind of process, of some kind of radical, revolutionary process in the U.S., is absurd. And basically, if it ain’t us leading this thing, it ain’t going nowhere…The white left has got to understand: you aren’t going to be at the center of this. Not anymore.

Author’s note: In the time between the writing and publication of this piece, Stop Cop City activists revealed plans for a music festival in the South River Forest, which is still under construction and heavy police surveillance. Additionally, activists on social media are promoting a public calendar for a “week of action” to stop Cop City that anyone can access and edit. Meanwhile, the Black Power Media youtube page was temporarily suspended this week after reactionary elements of the white left brigaded and harassed one of the contributors quoted above, Jacqueline Luqman, following her criticism of an anti-war rally organized by members of a far-right Libertarian Party caucus.  

Imperialists always speak with forked tongues, even when they speak the truth. “The war in Ukraine,” the imperialists say, “is a war of Russian aggression. It began in February of 2022, when the Russian Federation invaded the Donbass.” But beware! The imperialist media has no reason to tell “objective” truths. Whether the people reporting on the war know it or not, they’re being used as tools to sell a story to the workers in the West. That story is one the imperialists want you to hear. They pick a point to start their telling: after their own provocations, but before a response. Then they rend their garments and tear their hair, crying about violence and aggression! But what of their responsibility? We never hear of it! Make no mistakes and no equivocations: the Russo-Ukrainian War is the result of a studied policy of aggression pursued by the White House. At every turn, the Euro-Atlantic alliance took steps to heighten tensions between Russia and Ukraine. At every turn, the U.S. imperialists pushed Russia closer to the brink. It was within their power to bring everyone back, to prevent war, to calm tensions; it was simply not within their interests.

If the war didn’t start in February of 2022, when did it begin? What were the provocations and tensions that made it inevitable? Although we could trace its origins back to the imperialist breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the most direct causes of the 2022 war fell into place eight years ago, during the Euromaidan coup that deposed the lawfully elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. In late 2013 and early 2014, the Russian-leaning government of Ukraine was forcibly ousted by CIA-backed Banderists. The economy of Ukraine was at that time oriented almost entirely eastward thanks to the Yanukovych government. 

By 2014, the Eurostates had already been trying to turn Ukraine westward for a decade. Before Yanukovych, President Viktor Yushchenko maneuvered for years to bring Ukraine into the European Union (EU). Yushchenko was aggressive in trying to “contain” the Russian Federation (RF), much to the delight of the Western imperialists. But Yushchenko’s government collapsed in fights with the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s single-house parliament, which scuttled the efforts of the Ukrainian capitalists to further integrate with the West. In 2010 Yushchenko lost the presidency to the RF-friendly Viktor Yanukovych. What kind of man was President Yushchenko, who wanted to bring Ukraine into harmony with the west? One of his final official acts was to award the dead murderer Stepan Bandera the title “Hero of the Ukraine,” celebrating the man who worked in collaboration with the German Nazis to purge the country of Poles and Jews.

In late 2013, the Yanukovych government in Kiev stalled on a trade agreement with the EU that would have gutted the Ukrainian economy and drawn its resources into the more-developed economies of Germany and France. (This kind of economic draining effect had already been seen in the so-called third tier economies of Italy, Spain, and Greece, as the leading EU economy of Germany fattened itself on that of the others.) In order to achieve this refusal, the RF put the squeeze on domestic prices inside Ukraine. Gas prices increased 79% as the Russian Federation applied pressure to prevent a new Euro-oriented trade deal from being ratified. This triggered waves of internal unrest and set the stage for the Euromaidan coup in early 2014.

Ultranationalist political and paramilitary groups like Right Sector, the Azov Battalion, the National Corps, and Svoboda took control of the Euromaidan protests. From simple expressions of discontent, the demonstrations were rapidly transformed into a rightist coup. The elections held immediately after the coup were plagued with open corruption and office-purchasing. These are the kinds of “irregularities” a country usually finds itself accused of just prior to a U.S. invasion! Yet here, the elections were applauded by U.S. observers. Among other outrages committed by the new government were the renaming of monuments, streets, and awards in honor of and named after prominent Antisemites and Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera, the man President Yushchenko celebrated as he left office. The new, post-coup, interim president, Poroshenko, who had been Yushchenko’s Prime Minister, immediately began attacking the use of the Russian language in Ukraine and supported the slow ethnic cleansing of Russians and Russian speakers taking place in the eastern and primarily Russian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. His government outlawed Communist symbols and parties in Ukraine and embraced Ukrainian ultranationalism as a credo. In the name of integration with the “liberal” west, the new Ukrainian government launched a crusade that conflated communism with Russian-ness, wielded its new state power like a great hammer that might crush them both. Banderite ultranationalists were placed into the top posts of the Ukrainian government.

Setting the Stage

The story of the Euromaidan and the Russo-Ukrainian war goes back all the way to 1985 with glasnost and perestroika, during which the agents of Western intelligence penetrated deeper and deeper into the ailing Soviet Union and made contact with the black market oligarchs they would use to destabilize and eventually destroy the Soviet states. The history of Western intelligence services interfering with the new “open” Soviet states is too long and complex to cover in this article. Suffice it to say that the crypto-Banderites, who had been lurking underground in Ukraine and waiting for their day, have been cultivated and encouraged for decades by Western intelligence. To clearly understand the course of events leading up to and following the Euromaidan coup, we should turn to 2010 and the relationship between post-Soviet Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and the EU.

To fully explore the reasons for the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War, it’s important to understand not only the events of the Euromaidan of 2014, but the shifting position of Ukraine with regard to the EU, and the discovery of oil in the country. Further, we have to understand the deep-seated issue of fascism native to Ukraine and how it affects decision making today. The Ukrainian fascism of Stepan Bandera, Banderism, animates the decision-making of many of the reactionaries now in power.

The roots of many of today’s issues giving rise to the war can be traced back directly to the presidency of Viktor Yushchenko. Viktor Yushchenko was the third president of independent Ukraine. During the 2004-2005 election, Yushchenko’s opponent, Viktor Yanukovich, was initially reported as the winner. Foreign governments and media outlets reported election-rigging, likely as part of a Euro-American plan to shift the country rightward. Yanukovich, as we will see, had been a Soviet administrator who was attempting to develop a semi-independent Ukraine. Yushchenko, a right-wing candidate from the center-right party Our Ukraine, promised to pursue tighter relations with the West and to try to tie the country to the European Union and NATO. As a result of the reports of electoral fraud, massive civil resistance erupted in Kiev and across the country. The U.S. Empire engineered these riots and protests, which even the Guardian reported at the time. “The operation — engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience — is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people’s elections.”

This has been widely called the “Orange Revolution” and we can see it as a trial-run for what will come when Yanukovich actually manages to win an election in the face of U.S. interference.

The Yukashenko presidency was, as promised to both the people of Ukraine and the ideologues in Washington, characterized by tighter relations with Western Europe, attempts to implement International Monetary Fund (IMF) policy to receive and continue receiving imperialist debt relief, opening agriculture to free market forces, seeking and obtaining NATO membership, membership in the EU, introducing a second house of the Rada to “bring stability” to the government (and we should note that a second parliamentary house, like that of the UK or U.S., is often used for the anti-democratic purpose of defeating popular legislation), the formation of a single Orthodox Church of Ukraine, and giving the status of war veterans to anti-Soviet partisans who fought on the side of the Nazis and Banderite fascists. In essence an unreformed proto-fascist, Yushchenko tried to make inroads during his presidency to hitch Ukraine to the western-imperialist bloc. His ideology appeared vacillating: now siding with the RF, now with the EU. The compass behind his policies, however, has never strayed from his true north: a powerful, sovereign, ethnically homogenous Ukraine.

The entire world economy was rocked by the Great Recession of 2008 as the U.S. housing market collapsed. Speculators preying on low-income members of the U.S. working class who were trying to buy homes brought down the entire financial infrastructure of the U.S. Empire and plunged the world into an enormous downturn.

In Ukraine, this meant lowered demand for steel, its second-largest industry, and subsequent defaults to the RF state gas company Gazprom. Gazprom cut off Ukraine’s gas supply as a result of these debts and Ukraine spiraled into a deep and serious financial crisis. Ukraine’s manufacturing industry shrank by 42% and its construction industry by an enormous 58%. Yushchenko pushed the country into an IMF loan for $16.5 billion USD. As with all IMF transactions, the bank forced the Ukrainian government to implement austerity measures and privatizations of public utilities as part of the loan repayment.

The EU entered into talks with the Yushchenko government to establish a free trade treaty, the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement. The EU desperately wanted to open a free trade corridor with Ukraine to help orient it toward the Eurobloc. Doing so would give Germany and France access to the considerable Ukrainian industrial base built by the Soviets, would completely open a market of 45 million people for German exports, and would contribute to the encirclement and isolation of an increasingly assertive Russian Federation. The talks were ongoing through the end of Yushchenko’s presidency, although they remained unconsummated at the time of the 2010 Ukrainian presidential election.

Yushchenko, however, got into serious disagreements with the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada. Yushchenko struggled with the Rada in 2007 and 2008, attempting twice to dissolve it. In 2008-2009 his government broke apart; a rift opened between his Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, and his office. These successive crises eroded his political legitimacy and the general attitude in Ukraine began to swing back toward the left-leaning Coalition of National Unity.

The Ukrainian Economy, Russia, and the CIS

Following the breakup of the Soviet Union by the imperialists and the defeat of Communist parties and organizations in the breakaway republics, the capitalists who took control of the new and turbulent states in 1991 established an anti-Communist treaty organization to replace the federation of the USSR: the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Ukraine was a founding signatory of the CIS treaty. This created the Commonwealth of Independent States Treaty Organization (CISTO). Beginning in 1991, the CISTO states began negotiations toward a free trade deal — the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA). These negotiations were concluded in 2012 and the free trade area established. 

In the meantime, the Russia and the CISTO states sought admission into NATO and the western imperialist alliance, but the RF was rebuffed again and again. Eventually, the RF recognized that the Western imperialists would not ally with them and began establishing their own regional hegemony. Ukraine never came to that conclusion. U.S. agents continued to lead Ukraine on, without any actual intention of allowing Ukraine to join the NATO alliance but rather merely to prevent the new Ukrainian government from closing ranks with the RF. This attempt to keep the RF isolated from its natural allies so it could be opened to Western imperialism again, and would not rise to the status of regional imperialist or even global imperialist power, is at the heart of the Russo-Ukrainian war.

The economy of Ukraine grew by leaps and bounds between 2000 and 2008. It was reliant on exports of metals, metallurgy, engineering, chemicals, and food. In the early 2000s, prior to the Great Recession of 2008, the price of metals and chemicals continued to rise and brought a headwind into the Ukrainian economy. Foreign direct investment increased from half a billion dollars in 2000 to $7.81 billion USD just five years later.

President Yanukovych Victorious

In 2010, Viktor Yanukovych, from the Coalition of National Unity, won the Ukrainian presidential elections. President Yushchenko’s disgraced reputation brought him only some 5% of the vote. His embattled Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, was defeated by a narrow margin. A former transport manager in Soviet state enterprises and former Prime Minister in the cabinet of the second president of independent Ukraine, Yanukovych, and his bloc, favored closer integration with the RF while walking a “Europragmatist” path. The Yanukovych government continued discussions with the EU, feeling out a path toward the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement.

The 2008 crisis had forced the government in Kiev to rely on Russian economic aid for recovery even as the ruling class sought to court the EU. Although Yushchenko’s prior government had received IMF loans, this was not enough to buoy up the country. Critically, the gas needed to power industry and heat homes came from the RF. Yanukovych’s election represented, in part, a concession of the ruling class of Ukraine; although members of that class clearly wanted closer relations with the EU, access to Russian markets to absorb Ukrainian goods and reduced gas prices were more critical for the development of Ukrainian industry. The Yanukovych government, aware of the geopolitical importance of Ukraine in the defense of the RF (see below), was able to strike a balance and obtain a closer, but not integrationist, trade policy with the RF.

In 2011, the Yanukovych government ratified its entry into a competing treaty organization: the above-mentioned Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Zone (CISFTA), which abolished trade barriers between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Moldova, and Armenia. CISTFA is one of the many treaties between the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which is composed of former Soviet republics. The establishment of this treaty meant that Ukrainian goods could travel without tariffs into Russia, and granted Ukraine access to all of the CIS markets. It also meant that gas prices from the RF would be reduced, both necessary terms for the continued development of Ukrainian industry.

The policies of the Yanukovych government represent in miniature the ongoing problem facing independent Ukraine: being battered between the world-imperialist EU and the RF, which has been seeking to fully integrate the markets of the CIS countries, and even to politically integrate the former Soviet regions.

Back-and-Forth: The Russia/EU Problem

Ukraine is located in a strategic chokepoint between the world-imperialist EU bloc (which is part of the reigning Euro-American Alliance that has divided up nearly the whole world), and the emerging imperialist power of the Russian Federation. The RF’s ability to project power is mostly limited to those states directly on its border and within its sphere of influence, but it has assiduously carved out a small zone of control over the former Soviet republics: the CIS.

Independent Ukraine has thus, since its formation in 1991, leaned first one way and then the other. It is a small state which must balance the predatory concerns of its larger neighbors. It has sought the protection of the RF and shelter in its markets when the ruling class needed to restore profitability, then the protection of the EU and its imperialist ambitions when the ruling class needed to exert its independence from the CIS and the RF. This see-sawing makes of Ukraine a dangerous flashpoint between the Euro-American imperialists and the RF. Its physical location at the mouth of the East European Plain makes it geostrategically critical for Moscow to maintain friendly relations and foreclose the entry of hostile troops into Ukraine; at the same time, it has been vigorously courted by the U.S. Empire in an effort to destabilize the RF and open up the vast raw material reserves of the former Soviet Union to renewed Western exploitation.

The European Union-Ukraine Association, the free trade treaty sought by Yushchenko and the EU, was still being negotiated under the Yanukovych government. Free trade within the EU benefits Germany and France; free trade between the EU and other states benefits the entire Eurobloc, but disparately such that the greatest benefits flow, again, to Germany and France. When trade barriers are lowered, technical experts will tend to move to the place with the highest wages (the imperial centers). Concentrations of technical experts ensure that secondary, high-paying, “finishing” industries (as opposed to primary industries) will follow. The peripheral countries will be reduced to selling raw materials or primary materials to the technically advanced economies, then buying back the completed products at a markup that permits the imperialist metropole to extract even more from the periphery.

Russian industry is focused on the production of primary goods and raw materials. Because Ukraine, under the Yanukovych government, entered into CISTFA, the CIS free trade zone, Ukrainian finished goods found markets within the RF. RF raw materials were exported to Ukrainian industry for secondary processing and completion. However, if trade barriers between Ukraine and the EU were lifted, both Ukraine’s economy and the Russian economy (because, recall, there are no trade barriers between the two at this time) would have been exposed to the market forces of the EU, and to great quantities of European finished goods entering Russia via Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine would have reduced to industrial backwaters while the very expensive finished goods of the EU were resold in a balance of trade for raw resources and primary goods. The RF made it clear throughout the early 2010s that should Ukraine enter into the convention with the EU, it would cut off free trade to its own markets. Ukraine was forced to choose between closer ties to the EU and potential membership in the Euro-American imperialist alliance and closer ties to the RF and some degree of domestic economic freedom. Had Ukraine entered into the EU-Ukraine Association while the Russian Federation’s free trade provisions of CISTFA were still in place, this would have undermined the very careful and public trade policy pursued by Russia. Essentially, without trade barriers between the RF and the EU, advanced production in the EU would destroy the less-profitable industries inside the Russian Federation and re-colonize or re-imperialize Russia, transforming it into a reserve for pumping out natural resources to the advanced economies of Western Europe and forcing it to rely on Western European finished goods.

In 2014, in response to the repeated RF warnings, the Yanukovych government stalled Ukraine’s entry into the EU treaty convention. The government in Kiev, reliant upon the Russian markets, appeared to be poised to enter into more friendly negotiations with the RF purely out of necessity in protecting its own industries from European domination and to retain access to Russian primary goods. Trade sanctions and market instability combined to drive prices of gas even higher in Ukraine; real discontent broke out on the streets. The U.S. Empire and its junior partners, smelling the blood in the water, moved in to replace the Ukrainian government with one that was more pliable and more Westward-oriented.

Discovery of Gas and Oil

In 2010, enormous reserves of oil shale and gas were discovered in the Donbass and off the coast of Crimea.. Data indicates somewhere in excess of 5 trillion cubic meters of gas reserves in Ukraine, and 390,000,000 barrels of oil. European, and especially German, dependence on Russian Oil and Gas has been one of the greatest weaknesses of the western imperialists, and, consequently, perhaps Russia’s greatest strength in its struggle with the Euro-Atlantic bloc. These newly discovered deposits represent enough oil and gas to make Europe entirely independent of Russia, if it could be exploited to the benefit of the EU states. 

In 2012, U.S. monopoly capital (in the form of the Shell and Exxon corporations) was granted exploration rights to the new Ukrainian oil and gas deposits. The Yanukovych government, like the governments before it, was hedging its bets, engaging on the one hand the RF and on the other the Euro-American imperialists.

As of 2021, the top Russian exports were crude and refined petroleum. The industrial sector of the RF is reliant almost entirely on the production and export of natural resources. Its largest companies are the state-owned Gazprom and Lukoil. In order to realize the profits (and thus drive its capitalist internal, domestic markets) in these corporations, it must export massive quantities of gas, oil, chemicals, and grain. It is the third largest oil-producing company in the world, behind only the U.S. Empire itself and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. satellite. It produces 10.5 million barrels of oil a day.

In 2021, 45% of the natural gas consumed in the states of the European Union came from the Russian Federation; almost all of the rest comes from within EU states. 90% of oil and natural gas imported into the European Union (EU) states came from Russia. The RF had been one of the largest suppliers of liquefied natural gas to the EU from 2017 on. The exploitation of Ukrainian oil and gas sources and the opening of Ukraine to drilling and export would have destroyed Russian state revenue. On the eve of the war, it was clear that the U.S. imperialists were pursuing a strategy designed to clip the wings of the RF by foreclosing the one economic strategy that had permitted it to retain some regional independence from the West.

Geopolitical Concerns

Lastly, we come to the military-strategic problem: the North European and East European Plains. These are regions of flat terrain, uninterrupted by substantial geographical barriers to troop movement. The North European Plain is very narrow in the north of Germany, but opens wider and wider the farther east you go, until it reaches the Urals. Because the East European Plain runs all the way to the Urals, Moscow lays exposed to rapid troop movements. It was this fact of geography (in part) that allowed the Wehrmacht to able to rapidly cross and occupy such great tracts of Soviet land, from the border all the way to the Moscow suburbs, eighty years ago and, 130 years before that, allowed Napoleonic France to accomplish a similar feat.

Ukraine sits at the point where the North European Plain joins the East European Plain. It’s at this juncture, on the eastern border of Ukraine, that the plain grows so wide that a general defense of the entire territory becomes untenable. The western border of Ukraine, however, is relatively narrow and forms a natural line of defense between Moscow and Europe. Little Belarus, a staunch ally of the RF and a member of the CSTO, projects outwards in an exposed salient, flanked to the north by NATO members Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Ukraine sits to the south of Belarus. Should Ukraine become hostile to the Russian-dominated CSTO, Belarus would be nearly enveloped, and the East European Plain would be held by enemy hands at nearly its widest extent, making land defense on a continuous front essentially impossible.

And so, in 2014, Ukraine was precariously positioned. The West wanted access to Ukrainian oil and to establish a friendly, NATO ally on the doorstep of the East European Plain. The Yanukovych government, much to the frustration of the Western imperialists, kept a cool distance from the EU. The stage was set for the Euromaidan and the events that would lead directly to the war. U.S. intelligence assets needed only one more part of the equation: connections with the Banderites.

Banderism

No understanding of modern Ukraine is complete without examining the subterranean force behind the right nationalists in that country: Ukraine’s own home-grown fascist ideology, Banderism. Western capital traditionally finds its strongest allies in the little fascists of the nations it wants to exploit. Ukraine is no different in that respect. Banderists, for their own reasons of “national regeneration,” despise Russia — and that is useful to the suits in Washington.

The Banderite Past

Before the 19th century, Ukraine was not considered ethnically or nationally distinct from Great Russia. The very name, Ukraine, means “border march.” The 19th century saw a number of major nation-building projects: from France and Italy to Ukraine, countries across Europe embarked on efforts to unify the people in their territory into a single “nation” with a shared history and ethnic identity. The territory of Ukraine was, in the 19th and early 20th century, divided between the Tsarist Empire to the east and the Austrian dominions in the west.

Nation-building began among the Ukrainian intelligentsia during the late 19th century, rooted in figures like Taras Shevchenko. Ukrainian nationalism and antisemitism were intimately linked. In 1905, amid the backdrop of the failed revolution in Russia that same year, a pogrom was carried out by monarchists and nationalists in Kiev that killed 100 Jews. During the First World War, the fragments of Ukraine controlled by Austria and the Tsars were themselves at war with one another. By the time of the Russian Civil War, both reactionary “White” (aristocratic, monarchist) armies and nationalist armies carried out pogroms. In 1919, for example, a series of brutal pogroms in and around Kiev were carried out by Ukrainian White volunteer army forces. It was not until the Russian Civil War of 1917-1923 that parts of Ukraine were at last able to exercise self-determination. In the west, Germany and Poland took over large swathes of territory and threatened the new Soviet republics in the former Russian Empire.

The parts of Ukraine in the Soviet Union were recognized as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. In the Polish-controlled regions, the Ukrainian language was suppressed. Members of the Eastern Orthodox Church and those who were recognized as being Ukrainian nationals or ethnically Ukrainian had fewer rights under the Polish Republic. This suppression led directly to the development of Banderism through the heightened nationalist movements that arose in reaction. In the early 1920s, inside Polish-occupied Ukraine, nationalists founded both the Ukrainian Military Organization and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). 

In the 1930s Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian far-right nationalist, rose to prominence inside the OUN. He was involved with several assassination attempts on Polish officials. He was tried by the Polish authorities and sentenced to death but his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment before it was carried out. It was this trial that established him as a household name among Ukrainian nationalists and which marks the beginning of the formalization of the vicious Ukrainian form of fascism that we now call Banderism. Bandera was freed from prison during the partition of Poland and he moved to Nazi Germany where he started working directly with the Abwehr and Wehrmacht. By 1940 he was the head of a splinter faction of the OUN, founding the OUN-B or the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists — Banderite. By 1942, the term Banderite was widely associated with the murderous antisemitism and anti-Polish actions of the OUN-B.

Bandera was proclaimed providnyk (the equivalent to the German Führer and Italian duce) at the Second General Congress of the OUN. It was at that same congress that the fascist salute and the call-and-response “Slava Ukraini!” (“Glory to Ukraine”), “Heroiam Salava!” (“Glory to the Heroes!”), so recently thundered from the pulpit of the United States Congress, were adopted. In October of 1942, the OUN-B, operating now in German-occupied Ukraine, formed its own army and death squads (the so-called Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Ukrayins’ka povstans’ka armiia, or UPA), carried out pogroms and massacres, and received nearly continuous material and political support from the German Nazi authorities. Banderism was embodied in the manifesto of the OUN-B, “Ukrainian National Revolution,” calling for the annihilation of “Ukrainian ethnic enemies.” The OUN-B stated that “When it comes to the Polish question, this is not a military but a minority question. We will solve it as Hitler solved the Jewish question.” This manifesto incorporated specific calls for ethnic violence against Jews, Poles, and Russians. “Kill the enemies among you — Jews and informers.”

According to the Banderite plan, only an ethnically homogenous Ukraine could stand on its own. They planned for an “annihilation action” and a Ukrainian version of the Nazi Generalplan Ost: the “evacuation or annihilation” of all non-Ukrainians. As the Red Army withdrew from Ukraine in the face of the Nazi advance, pogroms were organized in the cities by OUN-B and the UPA. In L’viv the UPA, in participation with the Nazi units, killed 4,000 Jews. In all of Ukraine, the pogroms carried out by Bandera’s forces are estimated to have killed 35,000 Jews. The murder of Poles was even worse: between 50,000 and 100,000 Poles were murdered by the UPA during the war.

Modern Banderism

Banderism was suppressed during the Soviet period. Nazi collaborators went underground. The Soviet government engaged in what was called “de-nazification,” preventing former Nazis living in the East German Republic and the agents of their Eastern European collaborator regimes from holding political office. There were trials, even executions. Bandera himself, who had escaped to the West under the U.S. policy of patriating and adopting Nazis, was killed by KGB agents in 1956. 

What about the West? Banderites have a distinguished history working with modern U.S. intelligence agencies. The CIA recruited Mykola Lebed, a Gestapo-trained leader of an OUN group and overseer of the murder of the Jews of Krakow, to work in their West German intelligence services in 1947. He was then smuggled into the U.S., hired by the Pentagon, and worked in CIA fronts like the Prolog Research Corporation.

The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, established in 1940 before the World War, still operates today. It is, as the journalist Russ Bellant wrote in “Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republic Party,” an umbrella organization made up entirely of OUN-B fronts. U.S. President Reagan welcomed Jaroslav Stetsko, a Banderite ideologue who had helped Bandera compose the OUN-B Manifesto and who personally oversaw the massacre of 7,000 Jews in L’viv, into the White House in 1983.

The U.S. courted these Banderites during the entirety of the Cold War, hoping to use them to overthrow or destabilize the Ukrainian SSR. Today, the stronghold of Banderism is the Western Ukrainian city of L’viv, but the ideology has adherents throughout the government. After the expulsion of Yanukovych by the Euromaidan, there was a sudden explosion in Nazi and Banderite monuments and dedications inside Ukraine. This is the tail end of a process that began as early as 1991 — with the collapse of the Soviet authority in Ukraine, the Banderites emerged from the shadows, particularly in the “European” western half of the country. For instance, in 1996 the journalist Ivan Matveychuk wrote that “For five years ultra-radical nationalist organizations are [sic] conducting a well-organized propaganda campaign against not only the left, but all Russians and Jews. B. Borovich, a mayor of Ivano-Frankovsk, recently told the schoolchildren of the city to ‘follow the true path of Stepan Bandera!’”

Efraim Zuroff of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted that “Ukraine has more statues 4 killers of Jews than any other country”.

The Drums of War

Why do the imperialists sound their drums and trumpets for the fascists in Kiev? It’s not as simple as the common fascist ideology of the U.S. imperialist ruling class and the murders in Kiev. Yes, Senator John McCain met with an applauded Ukrainian fascist Oleh Tyanhybok. Yes, Senator Christopher Murphy, a Democrat and supposedly an opponent of gun violence, stood on the platform with the murderous Tyanhybok. Yes, the leaders of both parties gladly and warmly welcomed the Neo-Nazi Azov leadership in October of 2022, long after their ties were public.. But the criminal conspiracy of looters that rule in Washington doesn’t honor ideological alliances; it has no friends except those who, for the moment, can continue to serve its interests. No — the Russo-Ukraine war was promoted by the U.S., arranged by the U.S., and finally brought about by U.S. manipulations that had very little to do with the fascists in power in Kiev. Washington would not lift a finger to save its favorite white-supremacist fascist rulers unless its agents knew there would be some remuneration for the Empire.

You will hear the breathless protestations of the agents of capital — the paid agents and the unwitting ones — more and more in the coming year as they moan with faithless mutterings that Ukraine was unjustly attacked; that NATO is a peaceful alliance; that a ruthless and expansionist Russian Federation was merely seeking to claw a little more territory, a few hundred-thousand square miles, from Europe. You have already heard, no doubt, news anchors and U.S. politicians alike decry the “asiatic barbarians” and their Oriental despotism.

But no; the U.S. ruling class wanted this war. It sought this war. It manufactured this war. There is no surprise in the halls of Washington, or if there is, it is only that the Russian Federation would not let itself be manipulated forever, hedged forever, trimmed and attacked in small, cutting ways forever.

The U.S. acted along several lines to bring about the conditions for the Russo-Ukraine War: economic provocations, threats to Russian oil and gas industries, and finally the general strategic impossibility of Ukraine joining the NATO alliance.

Euromaidan

In 2014, Yanukovych stalled the trade talks with the EU. The Radka had already approved the agreement, but the RF was exerting ever more pressure to prevent Ukraine from entering into a free trade zone with the EU. The RF signaled its displeasure by interrupting trade with Ukraine and, on the eve of the ratification, it offered economic aid packages that exceeded what Ukraine would gain from the EU and a promise to reduce the price of natural gas. This was unacceptable to certain elements in the Ukrainian ruling class, including Yanukovych’s political opponent, billionaire (and the man who would, as a direct result of the Euromaidan, become president) Petro Poroshenko. Poroshenko later said “I was one of the organizers of the Maidan. My television channel — Channel 5 — played a tremendously important role.”

The Maidan protests broke out in the West of Ukraine — in the traditionally Banderist cities. They lacked majoritarian support throughout the country and, in fact, most of the eastern portions of Ukraine didn’t participate in the protests. It is most likely that the initial irritation in Ukraine was organic. A real outpouring of working class anger at the now-this-way now-that-way policies of Kiev, frustration at the capitalist excess of the oligarchic ruling class that had captured the country in the years after 1991, the protests were nevertheless directed not at emergence of Banderists in the leading government posts of the west, but rather at Yanukovych for failing to bring Ukraine closer to Europe. Once the protests had begun, the Banderists wasted no time. The most active protesters in Kiev were members of the fascist-Banderist Svoboda. In L’viv, protesters captured the regional administration, declared a “people’s council” and proclaimed the Svoboda-staffed local councils as the only legitimate governing bodies. Right Sector led attacks on the police in Kiev. Nazi and founder of the Social-National Part of Ukraine Andriy Parubiy was declared the media’s “commander of Maidan.”

The protests in Kiev were strengthened by a hard backbone of fascists. “A sweet, ol’ grandmother is pouring Molotov cocktail in a nationalists’ bottles; and a manager of a large company is carrying ammunition to the student… For some, its ‘we need a couple of crates of AKs and grenades, we’ll sort things out here quickly,’” wrote Ilya Varlamov on his livejournal, during the protests. The city was cut apart by barricades: piles of burning tires in the streets, lit day and night by militants, blazed every night. The nationalists and the Banderists had control.

In Odessa, Communists built an anti-Maidan camp at the historical city center. Fascists, Banderists, and nationalists stormed the tent camp, forcing the Communists into the Trade Unions House nearby. The Banderists surrounded the building and, lobbing petrol bombs, set the Soviet-era structure ablaze. They killed 46 people in the Trade Unions House and injured some 200 others. Although there was an investigation, the Banderite government never formally tried or punished anyone.

The U.S. Empire got involved. Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy met with Svoboda and applauded the fascists, giving their support to the protestors. A leaked phone call from Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary of state, to the U.S. ambassador in Ukraine reveals Washington’s hand in promoting and advancing the Euromaidan protests. On the call, the ambassador and Nuland banter over who should be in the post-Yanukovych cabinet — weeks before Yanukovych actually resigned.

On 22 February 2014, President Yanukovych fled Kiev for Belarus. The Banderites had ousted the president. They selected businessman Petro Poroshenko as their interim president. Poroshenko signed an integration treaty with the EU and began the long, brutal war of ethnic and ideological extermination in the Donbass.

As a result of the Euromaidan, Ukraine has become the world’s training ground for the far right. Since the Euromaidan coup, Banderite Ukraine has been making noises about joining the NATO alliance. If Ukraine did join NATO, it would be a strategic death knell for the Russian Federation. Indeed, it would so clearly provoke an unwinnable war that the public-facing leaders of NATO have been very firm in denying Ukraine’s continuous applications. And yet… U.S. imperialist diplomats and advisors have allowed and encouraged the Ukrainian hope that Ukraine would join NATO, have encouraged its Banderite government to crow about NATO applications, and have hoped to spook the leaders of the Russian Federation with this apparition.

The U.S. Empire has refused to permit the Russian Federation to apply to join NATO, forcing it to form CSTO as an alternative. U.S. imperialist agents visited Ukraine frequently, and the U.S. Empire extended the arms of its regime-change machinery in the guise of the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, Freedom House, the Open Society Institute, and even the CIA.

The Cession of Crimea and the War in the Donbass

Immediately following the Euromaidan coup, the eastern regions of Ukraine erupted in pro-Russian protests. Russian speakers and their neighbors rightly saw the triumph of Banderists and proto-fascists like Poroshenko as a threat. As if to prove them right, the Banderists in charge of the new government set to work repealing the Ukrainian law that made Russian a protected minority language. Even the fascistic Hungarian government noted that repealing the protected status of Russian in Ukraine “could question the commitment of the new Ukrainian administration toward democracy.” Although the ultrarightists abandoned this plan, in 2017 they did pass an educational law requiring all classes in Ukraine from the fifth grade onward to be taught in Ukrainian — ending teaching in Russian and other languages of national minorities.

When Yanukovych fled, counter-protests exploded across the country. Crimea, far in the southeast of Ukraine and mostly ethnically Russian, joined in the pro-Yanukovych/anti-Banderist protests that erupted in Odessa and the Donbass. In Crimea, the protests specifically targeted the interim government. Formation of people’s militias and civil defense forces spread across the peninsula. The RF pledged support to the Crimean civil defense forces. A pro-Maidan rally of some 5,000 to 15,000 people demanded the resignation of the Crimean parliament. On 27 February, the parliament of Crimea held an emergency session while surrounded by what Western observers have called “masked and unmarked Russian soldiers” — “little green men.” At that session, the Crimean parliament appointed a caretaker government and deposed the Prime Minister of Crimea.

A 25 May 2014 referendum voted 95.5% to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. On 18 March 2014, the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol was recognized by the Russian Federation as an integral federal subject. This once again secured anchorage for the Russian Black Sea Fleet for the first time since 1991, brought the recently discovered gas deposits in the Black Sea under Russian control, and coincided with the beginning of the War in the Donbass. Two breakaway republics were founded in the Donbass regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. Kimitaka Matsuzato, a professor of the Slavic Research Center at the University of Tokyo (and someone lacking in Western intelligence connections or grants) wrote that the republics legalized their local Communist parties. The republics joined together to form a united front to expel the Banderite fascists and defend against the coup in Kiev. Professor Matsuzato wrote in his article The First Four Years of the Donetsk People’s Republic,

As early as May 2014, several lawyers in the DPR [Donetsk People’s Republic] such as Elena Shishkina and Vitalii Galakhov, started to ascertain and record cases of destruction, death, injury, and torture and other war crimes committed by the Ukrainian Army and paramilitaries in the DPR territory.

Outrages by the fascist-infiltrated Ukrainian military have continued unceasingly since the Euromaidan. Banderite fascist parties and organizations inside Ukraine, including Right Sector and the Azov Movement, continue to hold high positions in the military, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Defense. The indiscriminate murder of civilians, the shelling of schools and residential blocks, vile live crucifixions, starvation of entire towns and cities, attacks on water supplies, and worse have been the normal every-day experience of the Ukrainians and Russians living in the Donbass.

These vicious, fascist Banderite forces have been earmarked $105.5 billion from the U.S. imperialist Congress since 2022 began. We have all seen the self-congratulatory photographs of militiamen and regular Ukrainian army soldiers (complete with Nazi Sonnenrads, Banderist Wolfsangels, and other fascist symbology on their clothes) receiving Stinger missiles. Smug, self-assured “social democrats” have smeared their social media with vile imagery of “Saint Raytheon” in Ukrainian colors. The imperialist press and the guerilla social media attachés from the U.S. State Department have been beating the drums of war loud enough to drown out the truth: that the government of Ukraine is in the thrall of detestable fascists.

The Provocation

Under Yanukovych, Ukraine had adopted a non-aligned status. The Rada codified a law preventing Ukraine from joining military alliances — a clear move of conciliation toward the RF, assuring Russia that Ukraine would not strategically endanger the CIS. One of the obvious motives in supporting the Euromaiden from the point of view of the West was the reversal of this non-aligned status, and indeed, Poroshenko did so. In June of 2017, the Rada passed legislation declaring NATO membership as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. There was a new presidential election in 2019 in which Poroshenko was ousted and the comedian-president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was elected, likely with U.S. backing.

Zelenskyy sent out a clear message that Ukraine was interested in joining NATO. In September of 2020, Zelenskyy approved a national security strategy calling for eventual NATO membership. In June of 2021, the Secretary of State of the U.S. Empire Anthony Blinken said, point-blank, “We support Ukraine membership in NATO.”

In January of 2021, on the eve of the invasion, Vladimir Putin delivered a long speech setting out the Russian position. “[I]n December 2021, we nevertheless once again made an attempt to agree with the United States and its allies on the principles of ensuring security in Europe and on the non-expansion of NATO. Everything is in vain. The U.S. position does not change. They do not consider it necessary to negotiate with Russia on this key issue for us, pursuing their own goals, they neglect our interests.”

Clown Prince Zelenskyy

Enter the actor Volodymyr Zelenskyy, cap in hand, begging for a handout from the men and women who put his country up on the frontlines to be ground into hamburger. Prior to his election to the presidency of the Banderite Ukrainian government, Zelenskyy was a stand-up comedian and television actor. He was backed by former employees of the international management firm McKinsey & Company, pro-NATO Ukrainian generals, and the second-richest man in Ukraine, Ihor Kolomoyskyi.

Zelenskyy’s political campaign was utterly devoid of meaningful policy. He ran on a simple platform of national regeneration and “at least I’m not Poroshenko” (the outgoing Banderite president who was rocked by scandals). He did not hold one rally, but rather ran troll farms online, did online events, and used the publicity of his Ukrainian-language television show, Servant of the People (which he also named his political party) in which he portrays a school teacher who is unexpectedly elected to the presidency and proceeds to “clean house” by machine-gunning corrupt members of the Ukrainian parliament.

There was a substantial push from Western imperialists like Howard Buffett (the son of Warren Buffett), the lobbying firm Signal Group (paid through a mysterious agent who appears to be a self-employed lawyer in the U.S.), Christina Pushaw (press secretary for U.S. criminal and governor Ron DeSantis, and former employee of Mikheil Saakashvili), and others.

But who is Zelenskyy? He is an actor, hired to play a role. His job is to give a public face to a corrupt and venal dictatorship of Banderites and ultranationalists. As early as February of 2019, the European Union was investigating the open proclamation of numerous Ukrainian police officers to be Banderites. We must now assume that Zelenskyy was elected with the tacit compliance of the U.S. Empire and the Banderite forces inside Ukraine. The Banderites and ultranationalists have long been an arm of the U.S. foreign intelligence services. Allen Dulles, director of the CIA, worked closely with a former Banderite in the 1950s, Mykola Lebed, to destabilize the Ukrainian Republic. Andwhere have we seen the Clown? In no less than the U.S. magazine Vogue, on U.S. television, dressed in a tactical turtleneck and playing the embattled president on news shows and through broadcasts, asking the United States to engage in a nuclear war with the Russian Federation. All along, the right warmongers in the U.S. have been encouraging and even cheering for “NATO no-fly zones,” the invocation of NATO Article 5, sending U.S. soldiers through Poland, and other provocations that would inevitably escalate to nuclear warfare. Zelenskyy is the voice of this warmongering movement. Although he is directly the puppet of the Banderite regime in Ukraine, that regime would not exist, could not have continued to exist, without the support of the imperialists in Washington. Imperialist policy from Washington has magnified the fascist threat within Ukraine, has trained it, has helped elect its “softer” face.

U.S. Empire against the Euro-Alliance

On its face, the conflict now raging inside Ukraine is a war between the Russian Federation and the state of Ukraine. On another level, this is a war between NATO and the Russian Federation, addressed above. On yet a third level, this is a war between the U.S. Empire and its junior partners, the Euro-Alliance.

Although the states in the EU have their own interests that are mutually opposed or exclusive, the EU bloc continues to maintain its cohesion. As its military and economic centers, France and Germany control the general direction of the Union. Together, the member states of the EU are capable of exerting imperialist pressure on the world stage, engaging in imperialist war, etc. In the 30 years following the destruction of the Soviet Union, however, the EU has acted only when and where the U.S. Empire granted sanction. It has been, essentially since the end of the Second World War, a junior partner to the U.S. imperialists, forced to follow the lead of U.S. capital because of its relatively weaker position on the world stage.

As a result of the changing status quo in Europe, the discovery of the Ukrainian gas reserves, and the general decay of the U.S. Empire, the long-term strategy of the ruling class in the United States has shifted to ensure the continued subservience of the Eurostates. The EU’s own representative for foreign affairs (chief diplomat), Josep Borrell, said in October of 2022: “Our prosperity has been based on cheap energy coming from Russia…. [a]nd access to the big China market, for exports and imports, for technological transfers, for investments, for having cheap goods. I think that the Chinese workers with their low salaries have done much better and much more to contain inflation than all the Central Banks together. So, our prosperity was based on China and Russia — energy and market…. On the other hand, we delegated our security to the United States…. You – the United States – take care of our security. You – China and Russia – provided the basis of our prosperity. This is a world that is no longer there.”

European capital doesn’t want to serve the U.S. Empire. It has been forced to by the last great inter-imperialist crisis of the late 1940s. Capitalism in Europe crumbled and its chief beneficiary was the U.S. settler-republic which really, for the first time, was able to fully step onto the world stage as the leading imperialist power of the West. Since 2018 at the earliest, the U.S. Empire has been clipping the wings of the EU. The 2019 sanctions on Nordstream 2 are a perfect example of this trend. As the war approached, thinking in the U.S. Empire changed, spurred on by the deepening threat of general capitalist crisis. Now, the U.S. Empire must reduce the EU and the NATO member states to economic dependencies if it is to survive the contraction of the capitalist economy that will follow this latest crisis. The EU has been content to be a partner of the U.S. Empire — but ultimately, empire brooks no partners, only subjects.

The proxy war in Ukraine between the Russian Federation and NATO is going quite well according to the scoreboard kept by the United States. Russia has been forced to spend countless lives and untold treasure in war machinery while the EU has been decoupled from Russian gas and forced to buy U.S. product. Even better from their eyes, the EU is suffering brutal de-industrialization as the gas prices necessary to perform certain industrial and chemical operations make them no longer feasible.

The U.S. gets two things it wants: a pliable and open Russia which it can exploit, and the European Union put on a leash. But let us not bandy words about: the mere fact that the Russian Federation is a target of NATO aggression cannot transform it into anything other than it is. When a war between two capitalist states is the result of competition over domination — in this instance, the “regional security” and economic control of the Russian Federation over Ukraine on the one hand and the world-spanning imperialist system of the Euro-American alliance threatening to reduce Russia to a client state rather than a competing power on the other — this war does not, by virtue of its inevitability, become something to be celebrated. Indeed, both powers, the Russian Federation no less than the Euro-American NATO alliance, are acting in the interest of capital. In the case of NATO, this is the capital of the U.S. Empire and its Western European toadies. In the case of the RF, this is the capital of the huge state monopolies and the post-Soviet civil service class of robber-princes that command them.

“When one individual inflicts injury upon another such that death results, we call that manslaughter. When society places hundreds in a position that they inevitably meet early & unnatural death … its deed is murder just as the individual.”

Friedrich Engels, The Conditions of the Working Class in England

We have been betrayed. For three years, we have been abandoned, misled, shepherded to our dooms. Millions have died. Hundreds of millions have been disabled. All the while, respectable faces with plastered-on grins breathlessly offer hopeful platitudes, assuring us we’ll all be ok. Just trust the system.

You could be forgiven for not realizing we’re still in the middle of a pandemic, considering the total absence of media coverage. If it was important, you’d surely be hearing about it, right? The last variant you heard about was likely omicron. The last you heard about vaccines was likely “we strongly encourage everyone to get boosted.” The last you heard about masks was that they work, but they’re not required. And why would you bother wearing masks anyway if, as the United States president himself proclaimed, “The pandemic is over”?

Here’s the truth: the pandemic is not over. It’s much worse than you have been led to believe. And unless you’ve spent the past several years reading scientific studies on the subject, it can be hard to convey just how wrong the public perception of COVID really is. Everything from how it’s spread, to how it’s prevented, to what it does once it’s in your body, is being tragically misunderstood.

None of this is an accident. It’s not your “fault” if you aren’t a virologist, immunologist, epidemiologist, or evolutionary biologist. It’s the job of experts and trusted voices to convey the truth and give you guidance. Not only have they failed at this, they have engaged in an active disinformation campaign dedicated to making the pandemic “disappear”. This has not been the result of a classic caricature of conspiracy — some tiny council of elites, gathered in the shadows to craft policy out of whole cloth. What we’re actually witnessing is the quiet collusion of class interest. This form of conspiracy is a feature of cultural hegemony, and it has aligned itself in direct opposition to public health and scientific reality. A “conspiracy” of this sort takes place in full view of the public. Every actor within it has openly telegraphed motivations that we are all taught to see as acceptable: keeping the current economic system intact at all costs.

From the moment humanity learned of the novel coronavirus, uncertainty swirled. SARS-CoV-2, named for its terrifying viral cousin, seemed to be even worse than SARS: more deadly, more transmissible, better at evading detection. A singular question arose in the minds of two very different classes of people: “How do we survive this?” For one of those classes, the question was literal: how do we avoid being killed by a disease that seems to be spreading and killing invisibly and indiscriminately? For the other class, the question being asked in boardrooms and capitols was really: “Could this dislodge our grip on power?”

For infectious disease experts, the emergence of an unknown human pathogen — quickly identified as a novel virus — necessitated a pretty clear course of action: contain it, characterize it, and share information as freely as possible. Days after the first cluster of cases were found in Wuhan, Chinese health authorities issued a warning to the WHO. The full genome of the virus that would come to be called SARS-CoV-2 was released to the world before it was even documented outside of China. Coronavirus labs around the world began mobilizing rapidly to study the virus, including creating synthetic versions to study in cultured mammalian cells to learn as much as possible about its life cycle and pathogenicity. 

Why did experts mobilize so quickly, even before human-to-human transmission was conclusively proven? The primary reason is the precautionary principle: when dealing with an unknown, if you don’t know conclusively that it isn’t dangerous, presume the worst case scenario and take the proper precautions. If that wasn’t enough of a reason, researchers figured out pretty quickly that this was a relative of SARS, which has caused enough mayhem on its own to warrant every measure possible to avoid a repeat tragedy. This principle was particularly upheld in China, which had borne the brunt of the SARS crisis, but true precaution never truly materialized in the capitalist world.

After a brief experiment in precautionary measures (stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, quarantine guidelines) many countries in the West quickly saw the writing on the wall — these precautions were not sufficient to stamp out the emerging pandemic. There were measures that could have stopped the virus in its tracks: contact tracing (testing every single person who was in the vicinity of a potential case), enforced quarantines combined with guaranteed paid time off for even the hint of exposure, mandating fitted respirators (and distributing multiple N95s to every resident). But these measures would have required central governments to nationalize key industries, companies to pay employees not to work, and individuals to get comfortable with some discomfort in the name of social welfare (although many already were). These measures would have been a tremendous imposition on the free market, and even then, there was no guarantee they would completely eradicate SARS-CoV-2.

Even half measures, like local mask mandates, were better than nothing, and they did keep many people safe in the beginning. But despite them being utterly insufficient in the face of the crisis we were thrust into, they were still too much for the capitalists to tolerate. They were “harming the economy” by impeding production and discouraging consumption. Tiny protests, led by business owners demanding an end to “restrictions,” garnered massive media attention. Less than 2 months after their implementation, stay-at-home orders were already on their way out, even as cases continued to rapidly climb. Injected into every news story about the pandemic was a consideration for the malaise of the capitalists, whose economic ruin would surely spell the end of our society. The drive to “end the pandemic” began almost as soon as the pandemic arrived in the U.S.

The Lies and the Truth

Near the beginning of the pandemic, you may have heard a common refrain from public health sources: if we address the situation properly, it’ll look like we overreacted. And yet, by the time community transmission started ramping up in the U.S. in March 2020, we had already failed to “overreact.” The consensus had already come in from the highest levels: at all costs, do NOT start a panic. World leaders at the time, including the U.S.’s Donald Trump, the U.K.’s Boris Johnson, Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, Spain’s Pedro Sánchez, and Italy’s Giuseppe Conte, all spent the first few months of 2020 exhorting the public not to “give in to fear.” Following precipitous stock market crashes in February and March of 2020, every market analysis firm reported on the tremendous financial damage being done by “coronavirus concerns.” The overwhelming narrative in the early days was that fear of the virus would be worse than the disease it causes. This philosophy manifested in several ways, including outright lies that still haunt us to this day, driving misinformed “personal risk assessments” among the population, including:

• Masks don’t work.
• Masks do work, but cloth masks are fine.
• Stop the spread by washing hands, standing 6 feet apart, and sanitizing surfaces.
• COVID is not airborne
• COVID is airborne, but that’s not the main way it spreads.
• The only people harmed by COVID are old and immunocompromised people.
• Children don’t get COVID.
• Children can get COVID, but they can’t spread it.
• Reinfections are rare.
• Breakthrough infections after vaccination are rare.
• Reinfections and breakthrough infections happen, but they’re mild.
• Once enough people have been exposed, herd immunity will end the pandemic.
• Viruses naturally evolve to become less deadly.
• Once you recover from acute infection, you’re out of the woods.
• Long COVID is psychological, not physical.
• Long COVID is physical, but not a big concern.
• Heightened lethality of non-COVID diseases is due to “immunity debt.”

The list of officially-sanctioned lies could potentially go on for pages. The most critical feature of the misinformation is that it is always centered around that same core philosophy of minimization. That trend continued to evolve throughout the pandemic: whether it’s Anthony Fauci admitting that he discouraged masks because he didn’t want to trigger panic-buying, the CDC shifting its metrics from transmission levels to “community levels” in soothing pastel colors, school districts touting their supposed low transmission rates, or any of the other examples of public health malpractice, everything has been geared toward pushing people to underestimate danger rather than overestimate. This pattern has continued to this day, with officials attempting to head off panic in the face of the extremely infectious and immune-evasive XBB.1.5 variant (colloquially referred to as the “Kraken” variant).

Before going further, let’s clarify what that danger actually is. Because of how complex biological systems are, it is difficult to convey all the nuance of a viral pandemic without getting too technical. Nevertheless, we can make some pretty clear assertions, based on condensing hundreds of scientific studies into a few paragraphs. With that in mind, here’s everything you need to know about COVID-19 and the virus that causes it:

COVID is airborne. Airborne transmission is different from droplets, which are large particles containing the virus, expelled when you speak, cough, sneeze, etc. Droplets are heavy enough that they will eventually drop to the ground or nearby surfaces, meaning it’s relatively easy to contain: any physical barrier — like a cloth mask or plexiglass — will block these droplets before they can reach another person. “Social distancing” is a concept that applies to droplet transmission, under the presumption that the virus-containing droplets will fall to the ground before reaching someone 6 feet away. Sanitizing surfaces kills any viral droplets that have landed on them before someone can touch them and then touch their orifices.

However, COVID is not confined to droplets. We have known for years that it can spread through aerosol as papers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Emerging Infectious Diseases, and Risk Analysis demonstrate going back to 2020. Aerosol is composed of much smaller particles that bounce around between air particles, and can stay suspended and infectious in the air. Picture someone smoking: the behavior of the smoke is much more akin to the behavior of viral aerosols. Can you still smell the smoke behind a plexiglass shield? How about if you’re six feet apart? In a crowded, enclosed space, how many people would breathe in the smoke of one smoker? Measures designed to protect against droplets aren’t exactly pointless against COVID, since it also spreads via droplets. But just because you’re not spewing COVID-laden spittle in someone’s face does not mean you’re keeping your germs to yourself.

You can get COVID over and over. The idea that you become immune to COVID after getting infected or vaccinated is based on the concept of immune memory. Every time a pathogen enters your body (either through infection or vaccination), your immune system mounts a defense to stop it: first a broad “kill anything that moves” phase we call innate immunity, then a phase of adaptive immunity, which is targeted to kill the specific thing that triggered the immune response. Pieces of the invader are used to create, recruit, and activate a variety of immune components — including antibodies, T cells, and B cells — that are trained to recognize that specific pathogen. Some cells of the immune system, called memory cells, are kept around from that second stage as a sort of permanent record. If the exact same pathogen shows up again, the immune system already knows what to look for. This is the key behind vaccination: expose your immune system to a harmless piece of the virus, and it’ll remember it when it encounters the real thing.

Except this isn’t even close to the whole story. For one thing, the snapshot stored in your immune memory is just a physical piece of the pathogen, and viruses evolve very quickly. As the virus changes, the real thing starts to resemble the record being kept by your immune system less and less, and it becomes easier and easier for new variants to evade adaptive immunity. The more people that get infected, the more times the virus randomly mutates — and the more likely it is that a particular combination of those mutations makes a virus that is unrecognizable to your immune system. For a while, the WHO used to categorize these mutants as “variants of concern,” giving them each a new name. When the virus mutated enough to evade the immunity to the wild-type virus, they named it alpha. The lineage that was able to evade alpha was called beta. Delta was particularly immune evasive and its mutations brought high levels of lethality. Omicron was so different from all existing strains that it was practically able to infect everyone, no matter when they got infected and/or vaccinated. And then… they stopped giving the variants names. “Omicron” is still used to describe every descendant of that original variant, despite the dozens of highly-infectious, highly dangerous variants circulating today, none of which look enough like omicron itself for your immune system to efficiently recognize them.

COVID screws with your immune system. Upon infection, SARS-CoV-2 immediately gets to work suppressing attempts to stop it. It hijacks your cells’ machinery to shut down production of crucial immune system alarms. This includes the component used to present pieces of the virus on the surface of the cell to tell the immune system “Hey! This cell is infected, and here’s the culprit!” This component is necessary for specific immune cells to identify the target and proceed with the adaptive immune response, leading to both delayed innate and adaptive immune response.

When immune cells arrive on the scene, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is able to infect them as well. Monocytes, which are involved in ushering in the adaptive immune response, get infected by SARS-CoV-2, and are reprogrammed to prevent them from presenting antigens and teaching the adaptive immune system what to look for. T cells rush to become cell killers, causing the signature massive tissue damage that can be fatal in severe cases. Every infection depletes your body’s reserve of naïve T cells — that pool of “blank” immune cells your body keeps on hand for later deployment and specialization — damaging your ability to mount an effective immune response to future infections — including other pathogens. This is why, no matter how many people get infected or vaccinated, we have not — and will not — reach “herd immunity.” Naïve T cells are also necessary for stopping the cell-killing activity of activated T cells, which is a factor in the severity of acute COVID. Worse still, the population is steadily becoming more vulnerable to infections of all types. We are in the middle of an alarming surge of diseases beyond just COVID: RSV, influenza, strep A, and many others are hospitalizing people in record numbers — opportunistic infections, handed the gift of a softened-up population of victims.

For a while, vaccines were highly effective against severe acute infections — not because they prevented infection or created lasting immunity, but because they prompted your body to create antibodies to the virus, which can persist in your blood for months. If you got infected while these antibodies were present, it helped your immune system compensate for the virus’s suppression of adaptive immunity. Your immune response was less likely to go haywire, cause massive tissue damage, and lead to severe clinical outcomes. However, by the time boosters became available, the vaccines were already obsolete: they were engineered to target the original version of the virus, which you were already unlikely to ever see again.

COVID evolves rapidly. An idea has been floating around for years that SARS-CoV-2 will naturally reach an “evolutionary ceiling,” where it can no longer adapt around our immune systems, and will become no more pathogenic than a cold. This is predicated on a misunderstanding of evolutionary and viral dynamics. The main factors guiding the evolution of the virus are: how well it can spread from person-to-person, how well it can infect cells, and how well it can evade the immune system. This latter factor is the most crucial since, as previously noted, the virus’s effect on the immune system is a significant driver of its danger. The idea of an evolutionary ceiling stems from the notion that, in order to adapt around our immune system, the virus needs to change, and those changes necessarily impact its other features — namely its ability to spread and infect. But this is not the case.

As the virus spreads, it racks up mutations. Every new host gives the virus trillions of opportunities to mutate before sending it on to the next victim. By the time SARS-CoV-2 first took over the world, it had already diverged so thoroughly into separate lineages, giving rise to variants like alpha, beta, delta, and omicron. The Omicron lineage eventually emerged with another profoundly unique and highly-infectious set of mutations, and followed the same pattern. In its wake, it left behind many more child lineages, each distinct enough from each other to create a “variant cloud.” For months, the various omicron sublineages have been unable to outcompete each other, because none has had a set of adaptations so exceptionally advantageous as to outstrip the spread of the others. However, as the mutations continue to accumulate across all lineages, it’s only a matter of time before a new mega-variant emerges. It will sweep across the population, again diverging as it goes, spawning new lineages of its own — and leaving millions dead and disabled in its wake.

COVID is persistent. We’ve known for years that other coronaviruses, like SARS, can persist in your body long after initial infection. This is likely a byproduct of their evolutionary history; they evolved to spread through bat populations and survive bats’ unique immune systems. Bats are very long-lived for their size, potentially living for decades, even with multiple different infections quietly simmering inside them. However, in humans, these viruses’ tactics for suppressing a well-regulated bat immune system present a form of overwhelming force, which wreaks havoc on our bodies.

After the chaotic and potentially-lethal initial stage of acute infection, the virus is able to settle in for the long haul — evidence has been found in the gut, in human waste, and among “cured” patients. This can happen whether the acute phase was disastrous and hospital-worthy, or quiet enough for you to experience no symptoms at all. By this point, the virus will have suppressed your body’s immune memory, infiltrated throughout various organ systems — including your cardiovascular, nervous, and renal systems — and begun pumping out a steady supply of new virus. Of course, this persistent infection causes damage to the various organs where the virus has made its home, especially since it can trigger further inflammation. Your immune system is constantly trying to smoke it out, damaging more organ tissue as it does so. Your risk of heart attacks, strokes, neurological symptoms, and death in general are much higher during this persistent phase — and it only gets worse with every reinfection. It still remains unclear how long this persistent phase can last — certainly as many months as have been studied so far.

Evidence has been mounting for years that COVID is actually a type of autoimmune disorder, with several components of your immune system turning against your own cells. Not only are pro-inflammatory molecules heightened in both the acute infection and in so-called long COVID, high levels of antibodies against normal cellular pieces have been found in over half of patients hospitalized with COVID. The implications of COVID triggering autoimmunity are broad and can get fairly technical, but needless to say, the population being infected over and over with such a debilitating virus is catastrophic.

The Motive

Why would governments, public health officials, news media, business leaders, and every other trusted voice tell us outright lies (such as “COVID is not airborne!”) and avoid highlighting crucial truths (such as COVID’s propensity to damage immune systems)? Why would such a simple thing as distributing and mandating the proper usage of high-quality respirators — a layup of public health policy — be portrayed as being so toxic that to suggest it would get you laughed out of the room? Why would institutions like the CDC casually mention the existence of long COVID with one breath, and with the next, pat themselves on the back for “diminished hospitalizations”? Why has the entirety of public health policy contracted down to “Get vaccinated and you’re free”?

Part of it is simple ignorance: in the beginning of the pandemic, there was a lot we didn’t know. There were clues, of course; hypotheses based on what we knew about other coronaviruses. We could have guessed at airborne transmission, immune suppression, viral persistence, and rapid evolution, but we didn’t know these things conclusively. We didn’t know the exact numbers for case fatality, transmission, long-term symptoms, etc. But we didn’t need to know. The precautionary principle could have guided us to keep up avoidance and containment practices until we knew exactly what we were dealing with. And yet, the clearer the picture has become, the more we have reduced those measures, instead of ramping them up. COVID is more dangerous than initially expected, and yet we have continued to make ourselves more vulnerable.

The cold truth of the matter is that the motive behind COVID minimization is greed and social control. The capitalist system depends on constant growth: constant production, constant consumption, constant expansion of profits. Even brief pauses — such as a month-long stay-at-home order — have disastrous effects on capital. Implementing the mass prevention strategies necessary to slow down transmission (daily rapid testing, contact tracing, guaranteed paid leave for exposed workers, high-quality respirators, etc.) is expensive, and eats into profits. An information campaign explaining why everyone needs to stay home, instead of contributing to “the economy,” eats into profits further. Winding down all non-essential business and keeping it shuttered until the true end of the pandemic would contract the economy down to only what is necessary for society to function. The opportunities for financial capital to invest in new, profitable enterprises would vanish faster than they reemerge.

For capitalism to function, it requires two things: a steady supply of workers producing value and an unending flow of consumption to realize that value as profit for the capitalist. The onset of a pandemic presented a challenge on both of those fronts. Workers getting sick en masse and being forced to stay home for a couple of weeks — or even dying or becoming disabled and exiting the workforce altogether — was only one potential headache for the capitalist class. Far worse was the prospect of workers staying home out of precaution, thereby grinding production to a halt. Consumers staying home and buying only the essentials would prevent the realization of profits across huge swathes of the economy, cutting off the flow of capital necessary to keep the whole system running.

The moment it became obvious to market analysts that COVID was more than just a local Chinese outbreak, it triggered utter panic in the financial sector. Fears about the slowdown of profits led to several mass stock sell-offs from investors, lowering stock value, triggering even more panic-selling, across multiple different days. This wasn’t just speculation: decreased demand for oil rapidly triggered a massive price war that caused prices to spiral for months until becoming negative, with the holders of oil futures paying to offload their contracts. Without ramping demand back up, production of this and other key commodities would be financially toxic.

Capitalism also relies on a reserve army of labor to keep labor costs artificially deflated. A contracted economy, in which any worker willing to work is a rare commodity, tips the balance of power in favor of workers. Workers could more easily bargain for higher wages and safer working conditions (including liberal COVID leave). Most worryingly of all, in the context of long-term precautionary measures, the population would get used to a dangerous notion — that we have value beyond our labor and our consumption. When faced with the prospect of death or disability, the contradictions become sharpened in our eyes. Hundreds of millions of workers would suddenly ask “Why am I risking my life for this?” The frustration at a choice between abject poverty and potentially contracting a debilitating condition would galvanize workers to stand up for our rights. Waves of labor mobilization, rent strikes, workplace lockouts, boycotts, and more would sweep the country — and the world. It would be the greatest challenge to the political power of the capitalist class in a century.

The Strategy

Actually solving the pandemic was never in the cards for the U.S. and the rest of the capitalist world. It would have necessitated deep international cooperation, massive investment in clean air infrastructure, a persistent information campaign (and censoring of hazardous misinformation), efforts to build public trust in government, guaranteed paid leave, nationalization of key industries, and more. Basically, it would involve massively undercutting the philosophy of free market capitalism.

Instead, the explicit goal of the ruling class has been to make the pandemic simply disappear from public perception. Any reminder of the existence of a highly-transmissible, highly-dangerous, mass-disabling disease could trigger panic, or worse: organized, militant labor action. Averting this crisis required a careful campaign of culture-crafting; the people themselves needed to become convinced that there was no reason to fight. Consent for protracted mass infection needed to be manufactured.

There are three main ways this hegemonic narrative around COVID has been propagated to the public: official rhetoric, public policy, and media framing. These three facets of idea propagation feed into each other, and all three are maneuvered in various ways by the interests of capital. The process by which a hegemonic narrative is crafted in the capitalist sphere is not quite as straightforward as one might expect. It’s not a simple matter of a state propaganda department deciding on a central doctrine, issuing scripts to paid actors, and imprisoning all who dissent. There is no party line for the capitalists, no single convocation of business elites, and relatively few shadowy backroom deals. Explicit planning meetings are held — independently — among the leadership of different ruling class parties and distinct business interests, and their similar class interests lead them to similar priorities. But the way narrative unity of this sort is achieved is not through an all-powerful conspiracy. Instead, the “decision” for how to frame events arises organically from the interplay of the many individual sectors that comprise the ruling class propaganda machine.

The tone struck by what we think of as official sources sets the stage for the broader social response. This rhetoric comes from a variety of places — heads of state, government agencies, individual experts, think tanks, and other entities imbued with a sense of authority. These are voices that we are socialized to pay attention to. When they speak, they easily garner media attention. A news outlet that ignores or disputes these sources loses access to them and invites flak, thereby harming their ability to sell more news. These voices are generally in the room when policies are crafted — or crafting the policies themselves. What “the experts” say matters, and the particular experts being promoted by governments and corporations have steadily coalesced around rhetoric that minimizes the public health threat of the virus.

Official rhetoric does not always come to total agreement on presentation. The two-party system in the U.S. is often characterized by competing “official” stances, even when both stances are de facto acceptable to the established capitalist order. Throughout 2020, many prominent figures, including Donald Trump, attempted to prematurely declare the end of the pandemic. The Great Barrington Declaration attempted to launder the notion that attempts to mitigate the pandemic were harmful, and that we should instead try to reach “herd immunity” by allowing the virus to run rampant through the population. This was a non-starter in terms of propaganda material, since we could all see the devastation in plain sight. However, this was still valuable to the ruling class, because it laid the groundwork for a potent narrative — that of the “level-headed pragmatists” guiding us through the pandemic. Against the backdrop of conspiracy theories, bunk cures, and political disengagement from the reality of the pandemic, there came a promise from the liberal wing of the ruling class: “Unlike our opponents, we actually care, and we will get you through this.” Despite the difference in tone, the trajectory of the policies themselves has largely been preserved across political lines.

Pandemic public policy has been both shaped by and indicative of the official rhetoric of whoever happens to be in charge. It has reflected the recommendations of experts — those experts which had been chosen by the ruling government. In places governed by more liberal tendencies, curfews and cloth mask mandates lasted longer, instilling an implicit message that, unlike those science-denying conservatives, the liberals were “following the science.” This meant that, when these half-measures were rescinded, it seemed obvious that now people could feel safe putting themselves at risk.

Every policy choice has acted to shape the public’s perception of the pandemic. Mandating that businesses put stickers on the floor to demarcate 6 feet of distance hammered home the false notion that being 6 feet apart from others protected you. Requirements that bars and restaurants be closed for indoor dining made people reckon with the fact that these necessarily-unmasked spaces were dangerous. Reversing that restriction while mask recommendations were still in effect created confusion and demonstrated that the recommendations were meaningless. School districts shuttering physical classrooms put every parent on high alert for their children’s safety, while so-called “hybrid learning” taught people that safety was a parent’s choice. As school districts moved away from virtual school altogether, the message became clear: there is no reason to worry about your children getting sick. Steadily, measures put into place to protect people from the virus have been reversed, until the current state of affairs, where every public health “policy” has become instead a recommendation — and those recommendations don’t even come close to establishing true safety.

Economic measures taken during the pandemic have worked in a similar way to public health policy. In the beginning, policies were put in place to help the people who would be economically impacted: paycheck protection programs, tax credits, expanded unemployment benefits, eviction moratoria, stimulus checks, and student debt deferral. This aid was granted to ensure that the economic situation for the working class never got so despondent that workers would have greater incentive to rebel through labor militancy, rent strikes, or even violent uprisings. As these measures dried up, they came with the accompanying message: “You’re on your own now.”

Throughout the pandemic, media attention has been focused on reproducing official rhetoric through op-eds and interviews. The experts promoted above all have always been selected based on their proximity to power, both in terms of their official appointment and their rhetorical line. As governments and agencies solidified their pandemic-minimization rhetoric and policies, individuals who championed that line became even more appealing. The lure of manufactured conflict allowed media companies to profit by highlighting astroturfed, unpopular movements protesting all forms of public health policy. Depending on their particular cultural bent, news corporations could position themselves either as “freedom-fighters,” standing up to the government tyranny of half-baked precautionary measures, or as “champions of reason,” pushing back against misinformation and science denial.

In all cases, the pivot in 2021 was palpable. Now that vaccines had arrived, there was a feasible narrative for transitioning away from “economically-disruptive restrictions.” As soon as you got vaccinated, you were free to get back to normal. “Fresh air smells sweeter without masks!” proclaimed the first lady, triumphantly. Summer of 2021 was full of freshly-inoculated people enjoying significant levels of antibody-based protection, and cases were at their lowest point. The media trumpeted this wonderful news at every opportunity, showcasing ecstatic public health officials, booming businesses, and throngs of maskless people, while ignoring the still-omnipresent circulation of background cases.

Prognosis

With every new major variant, cries of “No one could have seen this coming!” quickly give way to “At last, the pandemic is over.” The same refuted myths of herd immunity, hybrid immunity, and vaccinated immunity keep cropping up, only to be dashed to pieces by the next wave. In the latter half of 2022, we entered a phase of multiple overlapping variants — all deliberately still referred to by their parent, omicron, to avoid panic. The baseline of weekly infections and deaths have remained higher than at any other phase of the pandemic, save for spikes as a new dominant strain emerged. The expert, government, and media line has stagnated at a calibrated silence, interspersed with the occasional recommendation to get vaccinated. Fitted respirators are recommended (lumped in with less-effective cloth and surgical masks), but they are not mandated, and rarely even modeled. Schools are fully in-person, despite their established role as hotspots of community transmission. At every opportunity, governments, corporations, and community organizations congratulate themselves on making it through the pandemic.

This is not simple negligence on the part of those who govern and shape our society. It amounts to social murder: the establishment of policies that place large numbers of people on the path to an early and unnatural death. You have the right to health, and that right is being deliberately stripped away from you with a policy of mass infection. Just because the choice isn’t being made with the specific goal of eliminating us (such as in the case of genocide), doesn’t absolve the choice itself. And that choice is being continually reaffirmed every day. The calculation has been made with no special regard for human health; only the preservation of the social order. Too much death and disease could challenge the power of the ruling class; 15 million excess deaths is just the cost of doing business.

We are at a crossroads in this ongoing crisis. As we continue to pretend everything is normal, the virus continues to evolve. Multiple lineages are circulating, accumulating mutations that help them evade immunity and run roughshod over defenseless populations. The next uber-variant is likely already here: the XBB.1 lineage is as different from the original SARS-CoV-2 virus as that virus was from SARS, and has an even higher ability to infect cells. With every wave that washes over us, our organs and our immune systems become weaker. Life expectancy is declining at an alarming rate. We are an increasingly disabled population, with no community support — or even awareness. The longer we allow ourselves to be governed by a culture of individualism, capitalist greed, and ignorance, the sicker we will all become.

The economic conditions that pushed the United States into the great famine of the 1920s–30s, namely debt crisis, profit driven mismanagement of environmental resources, and foreclosure of personal and private property, are eerily similar to those of the 21st Century. These forces have historically worked in concert to create a downward spiral of food affordability and agronomic recession that ends in mass starvation for the working class.

Predatory agribusiness and real estate systems have not changed in any meaningful way throughout modern history. Modern capitalist agriculture is fundamentally designed to enrich capitalist profiteers, not to feed the people. Economic demand for food products is not driven by the people’s needs, but by consumer purchasing power; economic supply of food products is driven by a producer’s ability to realize profit from consumer purchasing power. Thus, under the capitalist mode of production, the devaluation of money can, has, and will cause the entire agricultural system to collapse.

In order to mitigate the damages already caused by the petroleum industry and profit driven agribusiness we must actively reverse their effects and shift our societal goals from exploitative, individualist competition towards egalitarian cooperation. Economic Degrowth, regenerative agriculture, and agrarian reform known in the United States as “Land Back” are three major tools that can not only avert famine but also actively engineer a brighter future in coordination with nature instead of industrial domination.

The 20th Century Dust Bowl — A Warning from History

Throughout its development, the United States has established itself as an agricultural hyperpower with market dominance in domestic production and colonial plantation crops. This hegemony has been cultivated through unsustainable practices of fossil fuel farming and imposed upon the rest of the world by imperialist war and economic austerity. In its aggressive expansion, the U.S. agronomy of today has become entrenched in the same practices that Hugh Bennett warned of on March 21, 1935, when he directed the attention of Congress to a Nebraska dust storm blacking out the sun in Washington D.C. This infamous storm, along with the many that preceded and followed, would become known as the Dust Bowl era of U.S. history, and the tangible manifestation of economic collapse, market stagnation, and environmental disregard. 

The Dust Bowl began when Savings and Loan banks in the 1920s — eager to exploit the inflated costs of real estate — were lending irresponsibly at unsustainable interest rates to American farmers. As farmers took on debt to invest in heavy machinery, substantial increases in harvest yields began to push prices down on staple commodities like wheat and corn. In the same way that 21st century working people sold more of their time to service interest on personal debt, farmers had to expand their arable land and harvest more crops at lower revenue to make ends meet. For example, in 1930, 68 million acres of wheat yielded 824 million bushels, generating $848 million in revenue, but by 1932, 58 million acres of wheat yielded 942 million bushels, generating just $358 million in revenue — a 14% increase in productivity, but a 57% decrease in revenue, over 2 years. 

Under immense pressure from similar interest payments throughout the 20th century, American farmers began an era of ravenous expansion: Farmland swelled from 413 million acres in 1930 to 945 million in 2000, or from 25% to 50% of the landmass of the continental U.S. Much of this land occupied the Great Plains, a landscape formerly characterized by deep-rooting prairie grasses — with roots more than 20 feet deep — capable of soaking up more than 7 inches of rain in a single storm and retaining it in one of the world’s greatest deposits of rich, black topsoil. The destruction of the North American prairie and its replacement with shallow-rooting monocultures has directly decreased the amount of freshwater held within the interior U.S., which contributes to rising sea levels and sustained droughts. 

Capitalist agriculture necessitates expensive, constant supervision of water resources to combat the symptoms of drastically reduced water infiltration and retention in the ground. Once a section of land has been cleared of native plants, farmers rely on combinations of retention ponds, irrigation systems, subterranean aquifers, rain collection, and municipal water supplies to retain moisture in the ground. With the onset of the Great Depression, urban citizens were unable to afford food, market prices dropped, and the lack of financial input bloated interest payments for most farmers. Between 1929 and 1932, more than 30% of U.S. farms were foreclosed, leaving over 100 million acres of tilled farmland completely barren and unmanaged, mainly in the Midwestern and Plains states. 

The culmination of these economic issues was a devastating period of drought and starvation in the U.S. while unsold crops rotted in piles or dried out in fields unreachable by the hungry and destitute masses.

A Dust Bowl for the Space Age

In the modern United States, wages have stagnated to such a point that the 2022 consumer holds less purchasing power than they would in 1980. This net negative for labor is the result of 40 years of neoliberal financial development and trickle-down tomfoolery. This decrease in consumer dollar power has already fomented a steep recession in agricultural activity: Farm debt is at an all time high, and farm profits are at all time lows. Farmer suicide rates — normally twice as high as the average — are increasing in tandem with drought conditions as the Colorado River system fails. Meanwhile, farm foreclosure rates are breaking records across the corn belt, once again leaving millions of acres barren and unmanaged. 

The average cost of cropland in the United States has increased 7.8% just from 2020 to 2021, and more than 75% since 2007. Over the same 15 year period, farmland mortgage debt has climbed 267% from $112.7Bn to $301Bn, achieving a U.S. total farm debt of $464.4Bn in 2022. On top of this grim financial situation, geopolitics and capital interests have caused substantial cost increases in seed, fuel, fertilizer, and water to compound the larger trend of failing farms. In reaction to the exploding cost of farm production, market prices are increasing leading to a 12.2% increase in the consumer price index for “food at home” over the last year and are projected to continue outpacing alarmingly high inflation. 

Climate change is predictably disrupting agriculture. Seasons continue to shift, rainfall becomes unreliable, and megadroughts are drying up dozens of major rivers across all six inhabited continents. In the Southwest U.S., where North America is experiencing its worst drought, the Colorado, Arizona, Canadian, Red, Pecos, Arkansas, and Rio Grande Rivers are running dry, while others in the agricultural heartland, like the Gasconade River in southeastern Missouri, have begun a deadly cycle of severe flooding and extreme drought, greatly damaging crops, infrastructure, and livelihoods in the region. In California alone, a million acres of farmland are expected to be lost to drought in 2022, as farmers make the financial decision to destroy established orchards and plow fields of immature crops, while California water prices reach all time highs. 

The severe untenability of this situation has farm operators and workers across the U.S. living in fear of foreclosure, and their farmland in threat of dereliction. This will inevitably lead to increased drought and flood severity, increased food prices, and decreased nutritional availability and diversity for the vast majority of people. These crises will continue to coalesce into a modern day mega-famine across the American Southwest unless revolutionary changes are effected in the way our societies allocate resources.

Avenues for Healing: Degrowth, Regenerative Agriculture, and “Land Back”

The U.S. began its slow recovery from the Dust Bowl and Great Depression — thanks largely to Hugh Bennett — when Congress passed the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936. The act not only gave the USDA purview over soil conditions and water conservation, but also directly increased wages for farm workers in a widely successful effort to boost consumer buying power from the root. Another example of FDR’s New Deal policies that edged towards U.S. agriculture reform, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935, saw the federal government purchase more than 6 million domestic pigs and create the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation (dissolved in 1942) to distribute these and other surplus agricultural commodities to “destitute households.” However, our agronomic systems have calcified against the same social policies that saved the U.S. from civilizational collapse in the mid 20th century. This is evidenced by the ongoing food supply collapse under the pressure of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which millions of pigs and chickens have been euthanized (i.e., wasted), and more than a hundred million acres of land crops have been burned, buried, or otherwise left to ruin.

Politically, the solution to these problems exists by the name of Economic Degrowth. This movement is known particularly well in France, where notorious economist Timothée Parrique earned his PhD by compiling a constellation of disconnected policies and procedures into a coherent theory, deserving the attention of activists, policy makers, and economic planners globally. In his 2019 thesis, The Political Economy of Degrowth, Dr. Parrique meticulously explains the governing mechanics of turning entire capitalist economies on their heads, utilizing political power to actively redistribute resources among the working class. Degrowth has finally gained enough attention to be mentioned more than 5 times in the Sixth Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a means to mitigate climate damage and minimize catastrophe. 

Everyone can contribute to healing the landscape in their local environments through Regenerative Agriculture — the practice of using agricultural techniques to regenerate ecosystems to their natural balance while maintaining an ability to extract food. The closest modern America has come to this kind of revolutionary food-system shift was the Victory Garden movement that began in WWI and eventually accounted for 40% of U.S. fresh produce in 1943. In order to achieve this, citizens were empowered to rehabilitate public land for agricultural use; or, in other words, (very) partial land reform. Rehabilitation of derelict urban land — like the 30,000 empty lots in Cook County owned by the City of Chicago — will not only provide local communities with the potential for food sovereignty, but reduce flooding through improved rain absorption, reduce summer temperatures through shading and plant respiration, as well as the myriad of social and health benefits inherent in dignifying the working class.

A perfect union of Economic Degrowth and Regenerative Agriculture has already manifested in the Land Back movement — a decolonization effort to return stolen land and culture to Indigenous governance. Before the 15th-Century invasion of the Americas, beginning with Columbus, Indigenous communities spent millennia transforming their environments into plentiful agroforests and prairielands on a scale that would blow the tin pot off Johnny Appleseed’s head. The techniques needed to combat global climate catastrophe and systemic collapse have already been developed and practiced in Indigenous cultures. Our primary task is to remove the systems of oppression that prohibit their reimplementation. 

If we intend to evade the looming civilizational collapse of the 21st century we must revolutionize our food systems with Regenerative Agriculture. We must return the land to Indigenous Stewardship. And we must embrace Economic Degrowth policy that supports people over profits and serves hunger over industry.

A Note From the Editors

The author correctly (more or less) diagnoses the problem, but prescribes an inadequate solution. This prescription has two components: degrowth and “regenerative agriculture,” which the author says are “united” in the Land Back movement.

The main problem with both components, and with the whole prescription, is that they are essentially reformist, not revolutionary.

Let’s examine either in turn.

First, the author calls for degrowth. Unfortunately, the author never tells us what degrowth actually is. Instead, the author sings the praises of a certain French economist and degrowth advocate, who is said to call for, “turning entire capitalist economies on their heads, utilizing political power to actively redistribute resources among the working class.” This has the elements of a definition, but is still too vague to really tell us what degrowth actually is.

Degrowth can be defined as a movement for mass deindustrialization and the extreme curtailing of production and consumption, based on the ecology-oriented critique of economic growth. A basic premise is that capitalism is predicated on unlimited growth, despite the Earth having finite resources — all true. Thus, within the degrowth movement are moderates, who wish to diminish capitalist production through reforms, and radicals, who wish to eliminate capitalism altogether, also through reforms. Another basic premise of degrowth is that sustainable development is not possible (or, should be assumed impossible), and that efforts to build an ecologically sustainable economy (e.g., investing in renewable energy, electrified public transportation, and so on) are still “growth” and should therefore be ended.

Without entering into a full discussion of the merits and limits of degrowth, the problem at hand is that the movement’s progressive ideas will never be implemented in public policy without a socialist revolution. Countries characterized by the capitalist mode of production are ruled by dictatorships of the property-owning and labor-exploiting classes, first and foremost the capitalists; the governments of these countries exist to defend the interests of the capitalists, and any demand to scale back production will, needless to say, threaten the profits of the capitalists. Despite its more radical theoretical content, the degrowth movement has not significantly departed from the practical orientation of its fellow environmentalist counterparts: Its proponents mainly focus on lobbying governments, setting up think tanks, working with NGOs, holding academic conferences, and so on.

This is why degrowth and other reformist environmentalist movements, such as the Green movement, while progressive in content, are incapable of achieving the revolutionary changes we need to repair Earth.

Degrowth proponents envision a new, post-capitalist, ecologically healed world, and yet seem to believe, wrongly, that such a world can be reformed into existence by existing governments. The author of the above article, despite identifying as a Communist and holding membership in an ostensibly “Communist” party (the CPUSA), fails to challenge this reformist practical orientation, and likewise says that degrowth demands the attention of “activists, policy makers, and economic planners,” as well as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the degrowth movement has already caught the attention of governmental and intergovernmental bodies across the world — and, as with every other environmentalist reform movement that threatens capitalist interests, those bodies have mostly chosen to quietly acknowledge degrowth, while failing to actually act on its proposals. Clearly, we cannot rely on the good will of “policy makers and economic planners,” nor on the UN. Clearly, begging our rulers and oppressors for reforms won’t work.

All Communists should adopt the best elements of degrowth — assuming we haven’t already. But we must recognize that only a socialist revolution that overthrows the capitalists and builds a new, eco-socialist global economy will manifest the political willpower and ability to repair our planet while at the same time ensuring that all people enjoy abundance, prosperity, and equality.

Second, the author calls for “regenerative agriculture,” which he defines only vaguely as “using agricultural techniques to regenerate ecosystems.” While on principle we would of course support such programs, we disagree with the author’s characterization of this as a “revolutionary food-system.” The author cites as an (imperfect) example of regenerative agriculture the “Victory Garden movement” of the first half of the 20th Century. It is interesting to note that the New York Times article cited by the author, as an explanation of the Victory Garden movement, argues that the “movement” was not really grassroots, and was not really about “empowering citizens,” nor about “revolutionizing” agriculture, nor about “regenerating ecosystems.” The Victory Garden “movement” was a U.S. Federal Government campaign to instill the American public with wartime patriotism, and it served to increase the profits of large-scale agribusinesses, not to undermine capitalist agriculture. The “movement” was abandoned shortly after the Second World War ended, mainly because the public, especially the white suburbanites, lost interest in small-scale agriculture.

The author then calls for the “rehabilitation of derelict urban land” for this same purpose, which he says will “provide local communities with the potential for food sovereignty,” in addition to various ecological benefits. We would of course support a community gardening movement that fostered solidarity among working and dispossessed people, while potentially alleviating some degree of food poverty, especially one that came packaged with ecological benefits. But there is nothing inherently “revolutionary” about repurposing undeveloped lots to serve as gardening allotments. Plenty of cities across the world feature public allotments of this sort, and while they’re certainly neat, struggling for reforms to open up such allotments in U.S. cities won’t in and of itself bring us an inch closer dismantling capitalism (and therefore to achieving true “food sovereignty” for the dispossessed) or to repairing our planet’s biosphere.

Again, in principle we support the author’s “regenerative agriculture” model. But the problem at hand is that only a socialist revolution can realize this model as a revolutionary initiative — an initiative that simultaneously contributes to ecological restoration and the elimination of food poverty.

Finally, the author prescribes the “Land Back” slogan. All Communists must support the reclamation of stolen land by Indigenous peoples, and the right of all Indigenous peoples to return to and enjoy sovereignty in their respective homelands. All Communists must support decolonization. Problematically, however, the author again fails to state how this will happen, aside from the very vague, “remove the systems of oppression” in the way of decolonization. We feel the need, again, to state unambiguously that decolonization necessitates revolution. In other words, the just “Land Back” demand cannot be reformed into reality. The only way to decolonize North America will be to overthrow, abolish, and dismantle the U.S. Empire, as well as its junior-partner Canada, in a continent-wide anti-colonial revolution. Only then will “Land Back” become a reality.

The counterinsurgency model the U.S. Empire uses is one that’s based in a dual (or rather contradictory) strategy. This is a strategy of crude brutality, along with efforts to win over “the hearts and minds” [Ed: that is, counterinsurgency] of the people who are being violently occupied. It’s an absurd way of waging war, one that murders millions of a given country’s people while simultaneously depending on the establishment of a good relationship with those lucky enough to survive the genocide. It’s the logical conclusion of neo-colonialism, which demands that the imperialists dominate the peripheral countries through perpetual warfare while acting like these neo-colonies are “independent.” And the most ridiculous part is that at this stage in U.S. imperialism’s decline, it doesn’t even have any viable alternatives to this self-defeating warfare model. Washington continues to use it because it’s at least a strategy, not because it’s a strategy that works.

As shown by imperialism’s pivot towards hybrid wars since the catastrophes of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, Washington seeks to avoid implementing that counterinsurgency strategy whenever it can. It now tries to avoid the blowback from ground invasions, with their inevitable provocations of guerrilla uprisings, by instead utilizing asymmetrical warfare whenever possible. Washington’s use of such covert, indirect warfare in places like Syria, Ethiopia, and Myanmar is able to keep its global machinations going, without it having to resort to reckless actions in most cases. But the day is coming when Washington will have no choice but to apply its infamously awful counterinsurgency method in the worst possible location: the U.S. Empire’s domestic territory itself.

Evidence has appeared throughout the last decade indicating that if our government assesses there’s an existential threat towards capitalism from an internal uprising, it will occupy U.S. cities the way it occupied Baghdad during the Iraqi revolt. Many times, I’ve cited the military analyses showing this sentiment’s presence among the ranks of the national security state. So I need not again repeat the many outrageous statements included in these documents. But I’ve recently realized the explanation for why the wild scenario of internal siege that they describe still hasn’t materialized, and it’s not a comforting explanation.

What I’ve found is that the only reason why our government hasn’t so far taken the most extreme measures in fighting off internal revolt is that it’s still able to sufficiently co-opt and demobilize the liberation movements. The 2020 Black Lives Matter uprising, which came right after the country had reached a social collapse tipping point with the pandemic, showed that the country is closer to decolonial socialist revolution than it’s ever been. The people are getting radicalized by their conditions at an unprecedented rate, losing faith in their ruling institutions due to the appalling reality of their surroundings. All that’s missing for revolution is the construction of an organizational means for mobilizing the people towards revolution. When that task gets fulfilled, the capitalist state will be seriously threatened, and the state will react with a level of internalized violence that it’s never shown before.

When the uprising happened, Trump wanted to carry forth the plans to exact that kind of violence. He declared that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” and he sought to deploy 10,000 troops in Washington DC alone to suppress the demonstrations. But, because the Democratic Party could manage to co-opt the struggle, and because the forces of reactionary intrigue sufficiently frustrated the revolutionary organizers, Trump’s mentality didn’t win out for the time being. The country got only a taste of the worst-case scenario when Trump deployed federal agents to black-bag random protesters, and detain them in unmarked vehicles. State terror came, as well as paramilitary terror, but it was the palest shadow of what would eventually come, what our ruling class will do when it can no longer break up and divert the forces of discontent.

The propaganda tools the ruling class used to dissipate the uprising were utterly dull and uncreative, only able to succeed because no visible alternative to their pitch existed. As Martin Schoots-McAlpine wrote about the 2020 counterinsurgency against BLM, the COINTELPRO infiltration, pro-police psyops, state violence, and agent provocateur chicanery were followed by a bland drive to vote for Biden in November:

Despite the lack of success of the official Democrat cooptation attempt of the George Floyd Uprising, I want to point out one of the more insidious ways that the Democrats are attempting to coopt outrage against police murders through social movements themselves. It is worth first pointing out that Alicia Garza, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, is a supporter of the centrist-wing of the Democrats, specifically Elizabeth Warren….neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are even pretending to deliver on promises like this. Biden does not support medicare for all, and was an architect of the current racist criminal justice system. The #WhatMatters2020 campaign is a cynical sheepdog campaign, bringing black people angry at the current injustices of American white-supremacist capitalism back into the Democrats.

This is the alternative to revolutionary politics that our ruling class is presenting: a decrepit and discredited neoliberal husk of a party, unable to inspire the people in any way. The people are disillusioned with this cycle of false promises from a so-called “left” that keeps telling them to vote for their class enemies, and ripe for embracing the solution that Marxism provides them. All Marxists need to do is carry out the work towards organizing them, and towards raising them up to the level of an ideologically trained cadre member. Then revolutionary politics will grow strong. Which we are capable of doing, so long as we get the education on revolutionary intelligence needed to protect our cadres from COINTELPRO agents and other types of wreckers. We can outsmart the state’s sabotage tactics, and build a movement that makes the state no longer so comfortable.

Throughout this mass work, we must continuously engage in the physical development of our cadres. Because as soon as our mass work becomes effective enough, the state’s calculus will change. It will no longer view the liberation movements as manageable through co-optation efforts. It will treat them as literal insurgencies, to be crushed with actual military force. Not merely National Guard interventions or attacks by militarized police, as happened in 2020, but military operations on the level of what the U.S. has carried out in places like Iraq. The government may bomb entire neighborhood blocks, as it’s done in recent history via law enforcement. It may use drones to attack “terrorists,” mostly harming civilians as is the case for Washington’s “surgical strikes” abroad. It may start outright massacring crowds of protesters, which it wouldn’t even need troops to do since our police have been effectively turned into domestic armies. 

There’s no telling how far the U.S. ruling class will take it. What we can be certain of is that such a stage of counterrevolutionary violence will initially center around paramilitarism, because the last thing the government wants to do is alienate its own people by directly waging war against U.S. citizens. The country’s fascists will be deputized to hunt down all who are judged to be a threat to capital, a process that the government could assist in by doxxing the targets. This is something Washington’s puppet fascist regime in Ukraine has done to hundreds of individuals, who it’s put on a list of supposed Russian assets. We should see this, along with the Kiev regime’s fomenting of Banderite terror, as experiments on a testing ground for the U.S. Empire’s own fascist crackdown.

The closer we get to that breaking point within the U.S. Empire’s internal social stability, the more vigilant we must be. Stay on the lookout for fascist activities in your area. Stay on the lookout for infiltrators within the liberation struggle. Pay attention to the historic warning signs for a looming counterrevolutionary purge. Read Che’s accounts of how revolutionaries have in the past evaded capture by bourgeois dictatorships, and about how they’ve managed to use the bourgeois state’s reactive brutality against it. There is a route towards this land’s liberation, however strong the state’s weapons are. The key requirements are the support of the people for throwing off the bourgeois state, and the sufficient tactical and ideological training of our cadres. When these criteria are met, the state will maneuver towards crushing the struggle. But if we respond properly, that maneuver will backfire on it.