The Stalinists are calling Barack Obama’s win a “victory for the people.” As a former communist (note small c), I can translate that for you. It means a “victory for communism – or, more precisely, a victory for the party.”
Just listen to some of the hyperbolic and ecstatic rhetoric: “We meet on the heels of an enormous people’s victory. It was a long and bitterly contested battle in which the forces of inclusive democracy came out on top. The better angels of the American people spread their wings.
“An African-American president was re-elected to the presidency, the Democrats unexpectedly strengthened their hand in the Senate and House, new progressive voices, like Elizabeth Warren, are coming to Washington, and victories, including for marriage equality, occurred at the state level.
“On the other end of the political divide, Romney lost decisively, and right-wing extremism, while not a completely spent force (and it probably never will be), was greatly weakened. Its candidates and, even more, its ideas were repudiated by tens of millions.
“Moreover, the balance of power, that is, the ground on which people will fight shifted in a progressive direction, thanks in large measure to what might be the most notable development in this election – the further emergence (compared to 2008) of a multi-racial, male-female, working class-based electorate – an electorate that has the potential to renew and realign politics for decades to come.
“Finally, millions come out of this election with a far deeper political understanding – and on a range of issues: corporate plunder and profiteering, racial and gender inequality, sexual orientation and gay marriage, immigrant, reproductive and labor rights, the corrupting role of money in politics, global warming, and militarism and military adventures.
“All this bodes well for the future.”
The party apparatchiks go even further: “The Communist Party said a year ago that the 2012 elections would be the main front of the class and democratic struggle, and subsequent events have confirmed that fact.
“Indeed, we argued (and not everyone on the left agreed and probably still don’t) that defeating right-wing extremism was the key to moving the whole chain of democratic struggle forward.
“Conversely, we said that if right-wing extremists came out victors in the elections, they would accelerate to warp speed a capitalist class counterrevolution against people’s living standards, rights and organizational capacities the likes that we haven’t ever seen.
“But that won’t happen due to the fact that the voters – a rainbow coalition of largely working people – in their majority re-elected the president.”
In other words, the Communist Party is gleeful about the election results.
None of this should surprise anyone, of course. The Communist Party USA openly supported Obama’s election bid in 2008 and again in 2012. When the party chooses not to run its own candidate for president, it signals the party’s happiness with someone already on the ballot. And the party made no secret of its strong preference for Obama in editorial after editorial.
Yet, usually, weeks after an election, you can expect the party to start agitating against “the establishment” again. It’s in the party’s nature. It’s in its DNA. It’s almost a vital necessity for fundraising.
Not this year.
For all intents and purposes, the Democratic Party and the Communist Party USA are one. They share the same goals, the same aspirations, the same dreams of a worker’s paradise, the same illusions of utopia.
Never mind that unemployment is high.
Never mind that working people can’t afford gas.
Never mind that, by every standard of measurement, poverty and misery is up.
The Communists are happy with the status quo in America.