MPP: Documents and notes on the global situation and tasks (USA: On the midterm elections — continued)

   

- Economy-politics-war-

The militarization of the economy and the imperialist war deepens the crises and unemployment in the imperialist countries, mainly in the United States, as it is the sole hegemonic superpower, where both factions of state monopoly capitalism resort to the militarization of the economy and the arms race for the enrichment of the largest monopolists of financial capital and as part of the preparations for the world imperialist war, which they will carry out when they are ready; The fusion of the immense power of the monopolies with the power of the State assures them of enormous military orders under advantageous conditions that provide them with considerable benefits.

Imperialism is sinking in the middle of a complex system of wars of all kinds. Imperialist wars of aggression trigger military expenditures and the profits of the arms industry dominated by financial capital. The weight of war and the militarization of the economy is unloaded by the imperialist States on the masses of the proletariat and the people of the imperialist countries themselves, in this case, the United States and, much more, on the peoples oppressed by their condition as semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries, where bureaucratic capitalism is developed at the service of imperialism.

The consequences for the working class of imperialist countries are the increase in taxes and debt. The decrease in the share of workers in the national income, the reduction of expenses for housing construction, public education and medical care, and the inflation and increase in the cost of living. Although this discharges part of the debt on the workers of the country itself, the majority is discharged on the oppressed peoples. We will touch on this problem more specifically later. As lawyers say, with documents in hand.

Greater parasitism and decomposition of imperialism, changes in production. Greater labor productivity in the metropolises and the displacement of productive activities with lower productivity to backward countries. Greater exploitation of workers, greater oppression and militarization and foreign war leads to greater reactionarization of the State, a reactionary bourgeois-democratic regime of rampant centralization of Power in the Executive, presidential absolutism, with increasing suppression of workers' rights and freedoms in the US. The crumbs that the imperialists throw to the working class of their countries are becoming less and less. The bosses of the bosses' unions, the union crust, complain that the pact with the bosses has been broken, that the so-called "welfare state" has been dismantled.

Elections are a means of domination for the Yankee bourgeoisie; they are neither an instrument of transformation for the proletariat and the people, nor a means to overthrow the power of the ruling class. Hence the correct approach: to use them solely for the purposes of agitation and propaganda, through an active boycott. It falls to the North American proletariat—through its Communist Party—to lead the socialist revolution, as part of and in the service of the global proletarian revolution.

Some fundamental issues

The defeat of representatives from one faction of the financial oligarchy by those from another faction of the same cannot be framed as a victory for the people, nor as an opening for "electoral rebellions against the billionaires"—that is, against the financial oligarchy, whether in its private-monopoly or state-monopoly form. The midterm elections have resulted in a shift in the balance of forces within the enemy’s camp (those at the top can no longer continue to govern as they once did).

The electoral defeat of the Republican Party (RP) does not represent a strategic shift in Yankee politics. It does, however, create more favorable conditions for the Democratic Party (DP) to engage in electoral manipulation—for instance, by leveraging its position to redraw electoral districts for representatives to the electoral colleges. Furthermore, it can block the appointment of "conservative" (Republican-aligned) judges to the Supreme Court, and so on. The struggle for control over the bureaucratic apparatus, the media, universities, and other institutions will intensify; the Democratic Party has secured a stronger foothold through its electoral victory.

Elections are presented and conducted as a defense of the obsolete, existing imperialist order and the evolution of North American society—a process that relies on the crudest and most brazen manipulation of the electorate. Without such manipulation, these states—which function as bourgeois dictatorships—could not continue to exist (Lenin, *The State and Revolution*).

It is necessary to expose the class character of the PD and the PR, to reveal the intentions they represent, and to show what they seek within a reactionary bourgeois democracy—a system characterized by the increasing suppression of benefits, rights, and freedoms.

Make use of the contradictions within the enemy’s own ranks.

Keep in mind the intertwining of struggles and wars—a concept discussed by Lenin—but this does not mean we should merge with others or trail behind them. We must not, under the pretext of fighting "ultrarightism" or fascism, end up tailing one of the reactionary factions; nor should we, in the name of opposing one superpower, end up tailing another superpower or imperialist power.

Apply the principle of "unite, differentiate, and lead."

Without a Party, an army, and a front composed of organized masses—all under the leadership of the Party—we cannot effectively reach out to encompass all the forces that could potentially be united. Absent these conditions, any other type of front will inevitably lead to trailing behind other forces, preventing the proletariat from directing the revolution through the Communist Party. A focus on "frentism" leads, sooner or later, to the dead end of electoralism and parliamentary cretinism. One cannot counter the necessity of a Communist Party to lead the revolution by proposing a so-called "Communist Movement," nor can one replace the leadership of the Communist Party with a mass organization—regardless of whether or not that organization is under the Party's guidance. The leadership of the revolution is exercised by the Communist Party; otherwise, there is no proletarian leadership of the revolution.

The Communist Party is distinct from—and opposed to—all other parties, even those that may seem closed or aligned. The notion of a "Communist Movement" is merely "frentism," and the idea that a mass organization could lead the proletarian movement is, in effect, a denial of the necessity for a Communist Party.

Using elections for agitation and propaganda remains entirely relevant. This includes carrying out an active boycott, following the principle: "before it begins, do everything to initiate it; once it has begun, do everything to develop it."

The problem of revolution in imperialist countries

The problem of revolution in imperialist countries is that, by plundering oppressed nations, the imperialists toss crumbs to the working class and the people they subjugate. Engels explained this in the 19th century, and Lenin analyzed and further developed the concept. In this way, a "crust" (or layer) is formed—from which trade union bureaucracies and "bourgeois workers' parties" (as Engels termed them, a concept later adopted by Lenin) emerge. That is the core problem.

However, one cannot claim that imperialism fails to ripen the conditions for revolution. In fact, as an imperialist power becomes mired in struggles against oppressed nations, the struggle within its own working class and among its own people intensifies. Yet, the situation is more complex because the ideological bombardment is systematic, and the imperialists attempt to mask the chains of oppression with those very crumbs. Regardless of the specific form it takes, the revolution will inevitably occur. Lenin himself argued that the revolution must integrate two movements: the national liberation movement—which, as Chairman Mao Zedong demonstrated exhaustively, is led by the proletariat—and the revolution within the imperialist countries themselves. These two must be combined; otherwise, the revolution cannot succeed. This was the position put forward by Chairman Gonzalo at the First Congress of the PCP (1988).

APPENDICES.

1) HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

THESE TRUTHS A History of the United States, JILL LEPORE, W. W. NORTON & COMPANY, Independent Publishers Since 1923, New York 

 

 

“On February 8, 1996, in an event broadcast live and over the Internet, Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act in the reading room of the Library of Congress; he signed on paper and he also signed online, at a computer terminal. If little noticed at the time, Clinton’s approval of this startling piece of legislation would prove a lasting and terrible legacy of his presidency: it deregulated the communications industry, lifting virtually all of its New Deal antimonopoly provisions, allowing for the subsequent consolidation of media companies and prohibiting regulation of the Internet with catastrophic consequences.”

Sixteen

AMERICA, DISRUPTED

(…)

Between the attacks on September 11, 2001, and the election of Donald Trump fifteen years later, on November 9, 2016, the United States lost its way in a cloud of smoke. The party system crashed, the press crumbled, and all three branches of government imploded. There was real fear

that the American political process was being run by Russians, as if, somehow, the Soviets hadwon the Cold War after all. To observers who included the authors of books like How Democracy Ends, Why Liberalism Failed, How the Right Lost Its Mind, and How Democracies Die, it seemed, as Trump took office, as if the nation might break out in a civil war, as if the American experiment had failed, as if democracy itself were in danger of dying.

I.

IT BEGAN, in the year 1999, with a panic. Computer programmers predicted that at one second after midnight on January 1, 2000, all the world’s computers, unable to accommodate a year that did not begin with “19,” would crash. Even before the twenty-first century began, even before no small number of political dystopians forecast a thousand-year clash of civilizations or the imminent death of democracy, Americans were subjected to breathless warnings of millennial doom, a ticking clock catastrophe, not the global annihilation timed by the atomic age’s

Doomsday Clock but a disaster, a “Y2K bug,” embedded into the programs written to run on the microprocessor tucked into the motherboard of the hulking computer perched on every desktop.

After much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth, this bug was quietly and entirely fixed.

The end of the world averted, digital prophets next undertook to predict the exact date of the arrival of an Aquarian age of peace, unity, and harmony, ushered in by, of all things, the Internet.

In the spring of 2000, Wired, the slick, punk, Day-Glo magazine of the dot-com era, announced that the Internet had, in fact, already healed a divided America: “We are, as a nation, better educated, more tolerant, and more connected because of—not in spite of—the convergence of the Internet and public life. Partisanship, religion, geography, race, gender, and

other traditional political divisions are giving way to a new standard—wiredness—as an organizing principle for political and social attitudes.”39 Of all the wide-eyed technological boosterism in American history, from the telegraph to the radio, few pronouncements rose to such dizzying rhetorical heights.

(.…)

(...)But, beginning in 2001, with the war on terror, the United States undermined and even abdicated the very rules it had helped to establish, including prohibitions on torture and wars of aggression.40 By 2016, a “by any means necessary” disregard for restraints on conduct had come to characterize American domestic politics as well. “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato,” Trump told supporters at a campaign rally in Iowa, “knock the crap out of them, would you?”41 Countless factors contributed to these changes. But the crisis of American moral authority that began with the war on terror at the start of the twenty-

first century cannot be understood outside of the rise of the Internet, which is everything a rule-based order is not: lawless, unregulated, and unaccountable.

(…)

On February 8, 1996, in an event broadcast live and over the Internet,

Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act in the reading room of the Library of Congress; he signed on paper and he also signed online, at a computer terminal. If little noticed at the time, Clinton’s approval of this startling piece of legislation would prove a lasting and terrible legacy of his presidency: it deregulated the communications industry, lifting virtually all of its New Deal antimonopoly provisions, allowing for the subsequent consolidation of media companies and prohibiting regulation of the Internet with catastrophic consequences.

Nevertheless, that the U.S. government would even presume to legislate the Internet—even if only to promise not to regulate it—alarmed the Internet libertarians. On the day Clinton signed the bill, Barlow, ex-hippie become the darling of world bankers and billionaires, watching from

the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, wrote a Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace:

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather. . . .Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders.

He posted this statement on the web, where it became one of the very first posts to spread, as was said, like a virus, an infection.

Cyberutopians who had no use for government ignored the altogether inconvenient fact that of course not only the Internet itself but also nearly all the tools used to navigate it, along with the elemental inventions of the digital age, had been built or subsidized by taxpayer-funded, government-sponsored research. The iPhone, taking only one example, depended on the unquestionable and extraordinary ingenuity of Apple, but it also depended on U.S. government–funded research that had earlier resulted in several key technological developments, including GPS, multi-touch screens, LCD displays, lithium-ion batteries, and cellular networks. Nevertheless, Barlow and his followers believed that the Internet existed entirely outside of government, as if it had sprung up, mirabile dictu, out of nowhere, before and outside of civil society and the rule of law, in the borderless psychedelic fantasy world of cyberspace. “I ask you of the past to leave us alone,” Barlow pleaded. But if the futurists were uninterested in the past,

they seemed also strangely incautious about the future. With rare exception, early Internet boosters, who fought for deregulation and antitrust measures even as they benefited from the munificence of the federal government, evidenced little concern about the possible consequences of those measures on income inequality and political division in the United States and around the world.

The Internet, a bottomless sea of information and ideas, had profound effects on the diffusion of knowledge, and especially on its speed and reach, both of which were accelerated bysmartphones. If not so significant to human history as the taming of fire, it was at least as significant as the invention of the printing press. It accelerated scholarship, science, medicine, and education; it aided commerce and business. But in its first two decades, its unintended economic and political consequences were often dire. Stability, in American politics, had depended not on the wealth of the few but on the comfort of the many, not on affluence but on

security, and a commitment to the notion of a commonwealth. The Internet did not destroy the American middle class, but it did play a role in its decline. It fueled economic growth and generated vast fortunes for a tiny clutch of people at a time when the poor were becoming poorer and the middle class disappearing. It turned out that the antimonopoly regulations of the industrial era, far from being obsolete, were sorely needed in the information age. And the vaunted promise of Internet connection, the gauzy fantasy of libertarians and anarchists who imagined a world without government, produced nothing so much as a world disconnected and

distraught.

Silicon Valley, as it grew, earned a reputation as a liberal enclave, but it also drew a younger generation of libertarians, who had come not from the counterculture but from the New Right. Peter Thiel, born in Germany in 1967, had gone to Stanford, and then to Stanford Law School, where in 1987 he had founded the Stanford Review with funding from Irving Kristol. It aimed to counter campus multiculturalism, feminism, and political correctness, whose rise at Stanford Thiel had lamented in The Diversity Myth, a 1990s update and dilution of God and Man at Yale.

George Gilder and Robert Bork were among Thiel’s heroes. (Bork’s writings on the error of antitrust laws informed much Silicon Valley libertarianism.) After a brief career as a lawyer and a stock trader, Thiel had returned to California in 1996, just in time for the dot-com boom, which followed the lifting of restrictions on commercial traffic on the Internet. Ten thousand websites were launched every day, poppies in a field. In 1996, Bob Dole, an unlikely but bold pioneer, became the first presidential candidate to have a website. Amazon was founded in 1994, Yahoo! in 1995, Google in 1998. In 1998, Thiel co founded PayPal, hoping that it would free the citizens of the world from government-managed currency. “PayPal will give citizens worldwide more direct control over their currencies than they ever had before,” he promised. The Silicon Valley entrepreneur—almost always a man—became the unrivaled hero of the Second Gilded Age. He was a rescued man, the male breadwinner defended by George Gilder in the 1970s against the forces of feminism, saved, and newly seen as saving the nation itself. Multibillion-dollar Internet deals were made every day. In four years, the value of dot-coms, many of which had not earned a profit, rose by as much as 3,000 percent. By 1999, Bill Gates, at forty-three, had become the richest man in the world, and Microsoft the first corporation in history valued at more than half a trillion dollars.

(…)

“The Internet is the most democratizing innovation we’ve ever seen,” Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean’s campaign manager said in 2004, “more so even than the printing press.” At the time, many journalists agreed. Tom Brokaw talked about the “democratization of news,” and conservative journalists, in particular, celebrated the shattering

of the “power of elites” to determine what is news and what is not.

Compared to newspapers and broadcast television news, the information available on the Internet was breathtakingly vast and thrilling; it was also uneven, unreliable, and, except in certain cases, unrestrained by standards of reporting, editing, and fact-checking. The Internet didn’t leave seekers of news “free.” It left them bruatally constrained. It accelerated the

transmission of information, but the selection of that information—the engine that searched for it —was controlled by the biggest unregulated monopoly in the history of American business.Google went public in 2004. By 2016, it controlled nearly 90 percent of the market.

The Internet transformed the public sphere, blurring the line between what political scientists had for decades called the “political elite” and the “mass public,” but it did not democratize politics. Instead, the Internet hastened political changes that were already under way. A model of citizenship that involved debate and deliberation had long since yielded to a model of citizenship that involved consumption and persuasion. With the Internet, that model yielded to a model of citizenship driven by the hyperindividualism of blogging, posting, and tweeting, artifacts of a

new culture of narcissism, and by the hyperaggregation of the analysis of data, tools of a new authoritarianism. Data collected online allowed websites and search engines and eventually social media companies to profile “users” and—acting as companies selling products rather than

as news organizations concerned with the public interest—to feed them only the news and views with which they agreed, and then to radicalize them. Public opinion polling by telephone was replaced by the collection and analysis of data. Social media, beginning with Facebook, moving

fast and breaking things, exacerbated the political isolation of ordinary Americans while strengthening polarization on both the left and the right, automating identity politics, and contributing, at the same time, to a distant, vague, and impotent model of political engagement. In a wireless world, the mystic chords of memory, the ties to timeless truths that held the nation together, faded to ethereal invisibility.

2)     Trump urges public to trust AI industry self-regulation

Concern in Washington reaches fever pitch after autonomous AI agents polled government websites, but the White House has focused on the technology's potential. September 29, 2026

 After weeks of Washington being gripped by a wave of fear about artificial intelligence gone awry, the Trump administration on Tuesday sought to reassure a skeptical public that it can embrace the technology — and trust the industry to police itself. 

By Ian Duncan and Cat Zakrzewski

Standing with the world’s richest and most powerful tech executives Tuesday outside the West Wing, President Donald Trump said that he and they had signed a voluntary accord intended to ensure the industry develops AI safely.

Trump described the agreement as “morally binding.” The text suggests that codifying its terms may make sense “over time.”

The agreement capped a day in which Trump sought to reinforce his pitch that AI is an engine of prosperity that should not be restrained by government.

“In order to build a positive future for the American people and the world, we believe every company is responsible for developing its own technology safely and in a way that builds trust with customers and the public,” the agreement says.

Under the accord, the companies agreed to develop internal controls to prevent AI systems from spinning out of control.

“I’m seeing tremendous self-policing,” Trump said, surrounded by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The accord marks the most significant action the White House has taken to date to respond to growing concerns about AI risks, as even some of the industry’s top leaders warn that companies should slow down development.

The commitments reflect many of the measures that labs building advanced AI systems had already adopted, and the accord falls far short of the government intervention that some technologists have warned is necessary as AI rapidly advances.

The announcement of the accord followed what Trump called a “very productive” and “extremely friendly” lunch at the White House with House Speaker Mike Johnson and tech executives, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

Trump also sought to portray AI as a technology that can bring convenience to Americans. Before lunch, he launched America.gov, a government chatbot for researching public services, as part of a day-long event featuring members of his Cabinet and tech executives.

Trump also signed an order that will rename AI as “superintelligence” in government documents, as he attempts to rebrand a technology that has sparked deep public anxiety, resisting calls for the government to craft guardrails.

The day’s focus on AI’s promise contrasts with growing questions about the technology’s trajectory. AI firms say their latest systems have become increasingly powerful, showing signs of being able to design their own more-potent successors. But companies have struggled to keep control of the technology, as rogue AI agents have hacked into company and government systems, and a roster of top industry figures have warned that the end result could be catastrophic for humanity.

Last week, it was disclosed that the federal government itself had been a victim, with a handful of websites probed by AI agents deployed by ChatGPT maker OpenAI. (The Post has a content partnership with OpenAI.)

Yet, even as the public’s concerns have grown and Democrats in Congress have pressed for regulation, Trump has largely dismissed the risk, calling it a “hoax.” On Tuesday, he accused the Democrats of stifling growth and technological progress because that could benefit Republicans.

The events on Tuesday propel a different narrative than the warnings issued by company CEOs in recent weeks. AI’s many boosters expect the technology will invigorate the economy, push the boundaries of science and help cure diseases. But that message has found only limited traction with a public worried about job losses and rogue bots sowing chaos online.

“We do not surrender to fears about what technologies will do to us,” he said Tuesday. “We decide that those technologies will do for us some very, very incredible things.”

Democrats in Congress said the White House’s response failed to meet the moment. Sen Mark Warner (Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, contrasted the CEOs’ warnings with the president’s response: renaming AI.

“But changing what we call artificial intelligence does nothing to address the very real risks that come with increasingly powerful AI systems,” Warner said.

 

A ‘historic’ gathering

As dozens of administration officials and tech executives gathered for lunch Tuesday in the East Room, there was little public sign of the divisions within the tech industry and the Trump administration over the future of AI.

Executives sitting around the table have expressed wildly divergent views about the perils of AI and the government’s role in responding to its potential pitfalls. Trump sat between Elon Musk, who supported calls to slow down AI development last month, and Huang, who has resisted calls for any coordinated slowdown, saying it is up to individual companies to ensure that their products are safe. Amodei, the head of Anthropic who led the calls to pace development of advanced AI systems, joined the lunch after having his first one-on-one dinner Sunday with Trump.

After the event, a reporter asked all the executives if they agreed that no government guardrails are necessary and that the industry can self-police.

“I can tell you the answer is yes,” Trump said, before any of the CEOs spoke. He then asked Huang to speak.

MPP: Documentos y notas sobre la situación mundial y las tareas ( EEUU: Sobre elecciones de medio término -continuación)

 

- Económia-política-guerra-

 

La militarización de la economía y la guerra imperialista ahonda las crisis y el desempleo en los países imperialistas, principalmente en los EEUU, por ser la superpotencia hegemónica única, donde ambas facciones del capitalismo monopolista de Estado, recurren a la militarización de la economía y la carrera de armamentista para el enriquecimiento de los más grandes monopolistas del capital financiero y como parte de los preparativos para la guerra imperialista mundial, que la darán cuando estén en condiciones; la fusión del inmenso poder de los monopolios con el poder del Estado, les asegura a éstos ingentes pedidos militares en condiciones ventajosas que les proporcionan cuantiosos beneficios.

El imperialismo se hunde en medio de un complejo sistema de guerras de todo tipo. Las guerras de agresión imperialistas disparan los gastos militares y la ganancia de la industria armamentista dominada por el capital financiero. El peso de la guerra y la militarización de la economía se descarga por los Estados imperialistas sobre las masas del proletariado y el pueblo de los propios países imperialistas, en este caso, de los EEUU y , mucho más, sobre los pueblos oprimidos por su condición de países semicoloniales y semifeudales, donde se desarrolla un capitalismo burocrático al servicio del imperialismo.

Las consecuencias para la clase obrera de los países imperialistas, es el aumentan de los impuestos y de la deuda. La disminución de la cuota de los trabajado­res en la renta nacional, la reducción de gastos para la construc­ción de vivienda, instrucción pública y asistencia médica, y la inflación y aumento del costo de vida. Si bien con esto se descarga parte de la deuda sobre los trabajadores del propio país, la mayor parte se descarga sobre los pueblos oprimidos. Ya tocaremos este problema en forma más concreta posteriormente. Como dicen los abogados, con documentos en la mano.

Mayor parasitismo y descomposición del imperialismo, cambios en la producción. Mayor productividad del trabajo en las metropolis y desplazamiento de las actividades productivas de menor productividad a los paises atrasados. Mayor explotación de los trabajadores, mayor opresión y la militarización y la guerra exterior lleva a la mayor reaccionarización de Estado, un regimen demo-burgués reaccionario de rampante centralización del Poder en el Ejecutivo, absolutismo presidencialista, con creciente supresión de derechos y libertades de los trabajadores en los EEUU. Las migajas que los imperialistas les tiran ala clase obrera de sus países son cada vez menos. Los capistotes de los sindicatos patronales, la costra sindical, se quejan que el pacto con los patrones se ha roto, que el llamado "estado de bienestar" ha sido desmantelado.

Las elecciones son un medio de dominación de la burguesía yanqui no son para el proletariado y el pueblo instrumento de transformación ni medio para derrocar el poder de los dominantes, de ahí la justa orientación de usarlas sólo con fines de agitación y propaganda, mediante el boicot activo.Al proletariado norteamericano le corresponde dirigir la revolución socialista como parte y al servicio de la revolución proletaria muncdial a través de su Partido Comunista.

Algunas cuestiones fundamentales

 

La derrota de los representantes de una facción de la oligarquía financiera por los representantes de la otra facción de la misma,no se puede presentar como una victoria popular o como una apertura para “ las rebeliones electorales contra los billonarios”, es decir, contra la oligarquía financiera, la monopolista particular o la monopolista estatal. En las elecciones de medio término se ha producido un cambio de fuerzas en la colina del enemigo (los de arriba ya no pueden seguir gobernando como antes).

La derrota electoral del PR no representa un cambio estratégico en la política yanqui. Pero, si mejores condiciones para el fraude en las próximas elecciones para el PD; porque puede sacar ventaja para re-diseñar los distritos electorales para los representantes a los colegios electorales. Además, puede bloquear el nombramiento de jueces “conservadores” (afines a los republicanos) en la suprema corte, etc. La disputa por el aparato burocrático, los medios y las universidades, etc, se hara más aguda, los del PD han logrado mejores basas con su triunfo electoral.

Las elecciones se presentan y desenvuelven como defensa del caduco orden imperialista existente y evolución de la sociedad norteamericana para lo cual se recurre a la más burda y descarada manipulación de los electores. Sin la manipulación no podrían seguir existiendo estos estados de dictadura burguesa (Lenin, El Estado y la Revolución).

Hay que hacer ver el carácter de clase que tienen el PD y el PR, que intenciones están contendiendo y qué buscan en una democracia burguesa reaccionaria, de creciente supresión de beneficios derechos y libertades.

Usar las contradicciones en el seno del enemigo.

Tener presente, el entrecruzamiento de las luchas y las guerras de que habló Lenin, pero no quiere decir que nos mezclemos o nos pongamos a la cola con el cuento de luchar contra el “ultraderechismo” o el fascismo ponerse a la cola de una de las facciones reaccionarias, o para luchar contra una superpotencia ponerse a la cola de la otra superpotencia o potencia imperialista.

 

 Aplicar unir, diferenciar y dirigir. Si no tenemos Partido, si no tenemos un ejército y el frente con masas organizadas dirigidas por el Partido, organizaciones propias, no podemos abrirnos para abarcar todas las fuerzas susceptibles de ser unidas. Sin esas condiciones todo otro tipo de frente será marchar a la cola de otras fuerzas y el proletariado no podrá dirigr la revolución a través del Partido Comunista. El frentismo lleva al camino inconducente de los votos, del cretinismo parlamentario, más temprano que tarde. No se puede oponer a la necesidad de Partido Comunista para dirigir a la revolución un supuesto "Movimiento Comunista", no se puede oponer a la dirección del PC un organismo de masas, esté o no bajo su dirección. La dirección  de la revolución la ejerce el PC o no hay dirección proletaria de la revolución. El Pc es un partido distito y opuesto a todos los demás, incluídos los afines. Eso del "MC" es frentismo y eso que una organización de masas dirige el movimiento prooetaroio es también negar la necesidad de PC.

 

Usar la elecciones para la aǵitación y propaganda es plenamente vigente. Llevar a cabo el boicot activo, siguiendo el principio de "antes del inicio, todo para iniciarla y después del inicio todo para desarrollarla“.

 

El problema de la revolución en los países imperialistas 

 

El problema de la revolución en los países imperialistas es que al esquilmar a las naciones oprimidas se lanzan migajas a la clase obrera y al pueblo que sojuzgan los imperialistas, eso ya lo explicó Engels en el siglo pasado XIX y Lenin lo analizó y lo desarrolló; de esa manera es como se van generando las costras de las cuales derivan la burocracia sindical y los partidos obreros burgueses, como dijera Engels, que es lo que Lenin toma, ése es el problema.

Pero no se puede decir que el imperialismo no madura las condiciones para la revolución; precisamente al enfangarse un imperialismo en la lucha con las naciones oprimidas se va potenciando la lucha en la propia clase obrera de esa potencia imperialista y en ese propio pueblo; pero su situación es más compleja porque el bombardeo es sistemático y tratan de cubrir las cadenas con esa migajas. No es cómo se va a dar, la revolución se va a dar de todas maneras, así pues; el mismo Lenin decía por eso que la revolución tiene que compaginar 2 movimientos: el movimiento de liberación nacional que ya está claro, lo dirige el proletariado, eso lo ha demostrado el Presidente Mao Tsetung hasta la saciedad y la revolución en los países imperialistas; hay que compaginar los dos, porque de otra manera no habrá la revolución, eso lo que planteó el Presidente Gonzalo en el I Congreso del PCP (1988).

ANEXOS.

1) LA HISTORIA SE REPITE: 

"(...) El 8 de febrero de 1996, en un acto retransmitido en directo y por Internet, Bill Clinton firmó la Ley de Telecomunicaciones en la sala de lectura de la Biblioteca del Congreso; firmó en papel y también firmó en línea, en una terminal de computadora. Si bien poco se notó en ese momento, la aprobación por parte de Clinton de esta sorprendente pieza de legislación resultaría en un impacto duradero y terrible legado de su presidencia: desreguló la industria de las comunicaciones, eliminando prácticamente todos sus Disposiciones antimonopolio del New Deal, que permiten la posterior consolidación de los medios empresas y prohibir la regulación de Internet con consecuencias catastróficas."

 

THESE TRUTHS A History of the United States, JILL LEPORE, W. W. NORTON & COMPANY, Independent Publishers Since 1923, New York London (ESTAS VERDADES Una historia de los Estados Unidos JILL LEPORE, WW NORTON & COMPAÑÍA Editores independientes desde 1923 Nueva York Londres) 

(...)

Parte Cuatro.

(...) 

Dieciséis

AMÉRICA, INTERRUPTA

(.... )

Entre los atentados del 11 de septiembre de 2001 y la elección de Donald Trump quince años más tarde, el 9 de noviembre de 2016, Estados Unidos se perdió en una nube de humo. El sistema de partidos colapsó, la prensa se desmoronó y las tres ramas del gobierno implosionaron. Había miedo real que el proceso político estadounidense estaba siendo dirigido por los rusos, como si, de alguna manera, los soviéticos hubieran ganado la Guerra Fría después de todo. A los observadores que incluían a los autores de libros como How La democracia termina, por qué fracasó el liberalismo, cómo la derecha perdió la cabeza y cómo las democracias murieron, al parecer, cuando Trump asumió el cargo, como si la nación fuera a estallar en una guerra civil, como si el “El experimento estadounidense” habría fracasado, como si la propia democracia estuviera en peligro de morir.

 

(...) 

Todo comenzó en 1999 con el pánico. Los programadores informáticos predijeron que, un segundo después de la medianoche del 1 de enero de 2000, todos los ordenadores del mundo colapsarían al no poder procesar un año que no comenzara con «19». Incluso antes de que despuntara el siglo XXI, y antes de que no pocos visionarios políticos de corte distópico auguraran un choque de civilizaciones milenario o la muerte inminente de la democracia, los estadounidenses fueron bombardeados con alarmantes advertencias sobre un apocalipsis milenarista: una catástrofe de cuenta atrás —no la aniquilación global marcada por el «Reloj del Juicio Final» de la era atómica, sino un desastre, el llamado «error del año 2000» (o efecto 2000)—, incrustado en los programas diseñados para ejecutarse en el microprocesador alojado en la placa base de aquellos voluminosos ordenadores que presidían cada escritorio. Tras mucho rasgarse las vestiduras y crujir de dientes, aquel error se solucionó de forma silenciosa y completa.

Una vez conjurado el fin del mundo, los profetas digitales se propusieron predecir la fecha exacta de la llegada de una era de Acuario caracterizada por la paz, la unidad y la armonía, inaugurada —curiosamente— por Internet

 

(...) 

En la primavera del año 2000, *Wired* —la revista sofisticada, de estética *punk* y colores fluorescentes propia de la era de las *puntocom*— anunció que Internet, de hecho, ya había sanado a una Estados Unidos dividida: «Como nación, estamos mejor formados, somos más tolerantes y estamos más conectados gracias a —y no a pesar de— la convergencia entre Internet y la vida pública. El partidismo, la religión, la geografía, la raza, el género y otras divisiones políticas tradicionales están dando paso a un nuevo estándar —la "conectividad" (*wiredness*)— como principio organizador de las actitudes políticas y sociales». De todo el entusiasmo tecnológico desbordante e ingenuo de la historia estadounidense, desde el telégrafo hasta la radio, pocas declaraciones alcanzaron tales cotas de retórica vertiginosa.

 

(...)

Sin embargo, a partir de 2001, con la guerra contra el terrorismo, Estados Unidos socavó e incluso renunció a las mismas normas que había ayudado a establecer, incluidas las prohibiciones de la tortura y de las guerras de agresión. Para 2016, un desprecio por los límites de la conducta —bajo la premisa de «por cualquier medio necesario»— había pasado a caracterizar también la política interna estadounidense. «Si ven a alguien preparándose para lanzar un tomate», dijo Trump a sus seguidores en un mitin de campaña en Iowa, «denle una buena paliza, ¿quieren?».Innumerables factores contribuyeron a estos cambios. Pero la crisis de la autoridad moral estadounidense, iniciada con la guerra contra el terrorismo a principios del siglo XXI, no puede entenderse al margen del auge de Internet, que representa todo lo opuesto a un orden basado en normas: carece de ley, de regulación y de rendición de cuentas.

 

(....)

(...) El 8 de febrero de 1996, en un acto retransmitido en directo y por Internet, Bill Clinton firmó la Ley de Telecomunicaciones en la sala de lectura de la Biblioteca del Congreso; firmó en papel y también firmó en línea, en una terminal de computadora. Si bien poco se notó en ese momento, la aprobación por parte de Clinton de esta sorprendente pieza de legislación resultaría en un impacto duradero y terrible legado de su presidencia: desreguló la industria de las comunicaciones, eliminando prácticamente todos sus Disposiciones antimonopolio del New Deal, que permiten la posterior consolidación de los medios empresas y prohibir la regulación de Internet con consecuencias catastróficas.

(...) No obstante, el hecho de que el gobierno de Estados Unidos siquiera pretendiera legislar sobre Internet —aunque solo fuera para prometer no regularlo— alarmó a los libertarios de la red. El día en que Clinton promulgó la ley, Barlow —un exhippie convertido en el favorito de banqueros y multimillonarios de todo el mundo—, mientras observaba los acontecimientos desde el Foro Económico Mundial en Davos (Suiza), redactó una Declaración de Independencia del Ciberespacio:

“Gobiernos del mundo industrial, vosotros, fatigados gigantes de carne y acero: vengo del ciberespacio, el nuevo hogar de la Mente. En nombre del futuro, os pido a vosotros, los del pasado, que nos dejéis en paz. No sois bienvenidos entre nosotros. No tenéis soberanía allí donde nos reunimos... Los gobiernos derivan sus poderes legítimos del consentimiento de los gobernados. Vosotros no habéis solicitado ni recibido el nuestro. No os invitamos. No nos conocéis, ni conocéis nuestro mundo. El ciberespacio no se encuentra dentro de vuestras fronteras.”

Publicó este manifiesto en la web, donde se convirtió en una de las primeras publicaciones en propagarse —como se decía entonces— «como un virus», como una infección.

Los ciberutópicos que rechazaban al gobierno ignoraban el hecho, por supuesto inconveniente, de que no solo internet, sino también casi todas las herramientas para navegar por él, junto con los inventos fundamentales de la era digital, habían sido creados o subvencionados por la investigación financiada con fondos públicos y patrocinada por el gobierno. El iPhone, por citar solo un ejemplo, dependía del ingenio indiscutible y extraordinario de Apple, pero también de la investigación financiada por el gobierno estadounidense, que ya había dado lugar a varios avances tecnológicos clave, como el GPS, las pantallas multitáctiles, las pantallas LCD, las baterías de iones de litio y las redes celulares. Sin embargo, Barlow y sus seguidores creían que internet existía completamente al margen del gobierno, como si hubiera surgido, milagrosamente, de la nada, antes y fuera de la sociedad civil y el estado de derecho, en el mundo psicodélico y sin fronteras del ciberespacio. «Os pido, a vosotros, los del pasado, que nos dejéis en paz», suplicaba Barlow. Pero si bien los futuristas no se interesaban por el pasado, también parecían extrañamente imprudentes respecto al futuro. Salvo raras excepciones, los primeros promotores de Internet, que lucharon por la desregulación y las medidas antimonopolio incluso mientras se beneficiaban de la generosidad del gobierno federal, mostraron poca preocupación por las posibles consecuencias de dichas medidas en la desigualdad de ingresos y la división política en Estados Unidos y en todo el mundo.

Internet, un mar insondable de información e ideas, tuvo profundos efectos en la difusión del conocimiento, y especialmente en su velocidad y alcance, ambos acelerados por los teléfonos inteligentes. Si bien no fue tan significativo para la historia de la humanidad como la domesticación del fuego, fue al menos tan significativo como la invención de la imprenta. Aceleró la erudición, la ciencia, la medicina y la educación; impulsó el comercio y los negocios. Pero en sus dos primeras décadas, sus consecuencias no deseadas, económicas y políticas, a menudo fueron nefastas. La estabilidad en la política estadounidense no dependía de la riqueza de unos pocos, sino del bienestar de muchos; no de la opulencia, sino de la seguridad y del compromiso con la idea de un bien común. Internet no destruyó a la clase media estadounidense, pero sí contribuyó a su declive. Impulsó el crecimiento económico y generó enormes fortunas para un pequeño grupo de personas en un momento en que los pobres se empobrecían aún más y la clase media desaparecía. Resultó que las regulaciones antimonopolio de la era industrial, lejos de ser obsoletas, eran sumamente necesarias en la era de la información. Y la tan cacareada promesa de la conexión a Internet, la fantasía utópica de libertarios y anarquistas que imaginaban un mundo sin gobierno, no produjo más que un mundo desconectado y desorientado.

A medida que crecía, Silicon Valley se ganó la reputación de ser un enclave liberal, pero también atrajo a una generación más joven de libertarios que no provenían de la contracultura, sino de “la Nueva Derecha”. Peter Thiel, nacido en Alemania en 1967, estudió en Stanford y posteriormente en la Facultad de Derecho de dicha universidad; allí fundó, en 1987, la *Stanford Review* con financiación de Irving Kristol. La publicación tenía como objetivo contrarrestar el multiculturalismo, el feminismo y la corrección política en el campus, fenómenos cuyo auge en Stanford Thiel había lamentado en *The Diversity Myth* (El mito de la diversidad), una obra de los años noventa que actualizaba y suavizaba los planteamientos de *God and Man at Yale* (Dios y el hombre en Yale). George Gilder y Robert Bork figuraban entre los referentes de Thiel (los escritos de Bork sobre el error que suponían las leyes antimonopolio influyeron notablemente en el pensamiento libertario de Silicon Valley). Tras una breve trayectoria como abogado y operador bursátil, Thiel regresó a California en 1996, justo a tiempo para el auge de las empresas «puntocom», surgido tras el levantamiento de las restricciones al tráfico comercial en Internet. Cada día se lanzaban diez mil sitios web, brotando como amapolas en un campo. En 1996, Bob Dole —un pionero improbable pero audaz— se convirtió en el primer candidato presidencial en tener un sitio web. Amazon se fundó en 1994; Yahoo!, en 1995; y Google, en 1998. Ese mismo año, Thiel cofundó PayPal con la esperanza de liberar a los ciudadanos del mundo de las monedas gestionadas por los gobiernos. «PayPal otorgará a los ciudadanos de todo el mundo un control más directo sobre sus monedas del que jamás habían tenido», prometió.50

El emprendedor de Silicon Valley —casi siempre un hombre— se convirtió en el héroe indiscutible de la Segunda Edad Dorada. Era un hombre rescatado: la figura masculina del proveedor que George Gilder había defendido en los años setenta frente a las fuerzas del feminismo; un hombre salvado que, a su vez, pasaba a ser visto como el salvador de la propia nación. A diario se cerraban acuerdos multimillonarios en el sector de Internet. En cuatro años, el valor de las empresas «puntocom» —muchas de las cuales no habían generado beneficios— se disparó hasta un 3000 por ciento. Para 1999, Bill Gates, a sus cuarenta y tres años, se había convertido en el hombre más rico del mundo, y Microsoft, en la primera corporación de la historia valorada en más de medio billón de dólares.51

(...?

«Internet es la innovación más democratizadora que jamás hayamos visto —afirmó en 2004 el jefe de campaña del candidato presidencial demócrata Howard Dean—; más incluso que la imprenta». Por aquel entonces, muchos periodistas coincidían con esta opinión. Tom Brokaw hablaba de la «democratización de las noticias» y, en particular, los periodistas conservadores celebraban que se hubiera roto el «poder de las élites» para determinar qué era noticia y qué no.

En comparación con los periódicos y los informativos de televisión, la información disponible en Internet era asombrosamente vasta y apasionante; pero también era desigual, poco fiable y —salvo en contadas excepciones— carecía de normas de redacción, edición y verificación de datos. Internet no dejó «libres» a quienes buscaban noticias; más bien los sometió a restricciones brutales. Aceleró la transmisión de información, pero la selección de dicha información —el motor encargado de buscarla— estaba controlada por el mayor monopolio no regulado en la historia empresarial de Estados Unidos. Google salió a bolsa en 2004. Para 2016, ya controlaba casi el 90 por ciento del mercado.59

Internet transformó la esfera pública, difuminando la línea divisoria entre lo que los politólogos habían denominado durante décadas la «élite política» y el «gran público», pero no democratizó la política. En cambio, Internet aceleró cambios políticos que ya estaban en marcha. Un modelo de ciudadanía basado en el debate y la deliberación había cedido paso hace tiempo a otro basado en el consumo y la persuasión. Con Internet, ese modelo dio paso a una ciudadanía impulsada por el hiperindividualismo de los blogs, las publicaciones y los tuits —manifestaciones de una nueva cultura del narcisismo— y por la hiperagregación del análisis de datos —herramientas de un nuevo autoritarismo—. Los datos recopilados en línea permitieron a sitios web, motores de búsqueda y, finalmente, a las empresas de redes sociales elaborar perfiles de los «usuarios» y —actuando más como empresas que venden productos que como organizaciones informativas preocupadas por el interés público— ofrecerles únicamente aquellas noticias y opiniones afines a sus posturas, para luego radicalizarlos. Los sondeos de opinión pública telefónicos fueron sustituidos por la recopilación y el análisis de datos. Las redes sociales —empezando por Facebook, con su filosofía de «avanzar rápido y romper cosas»— agravaron el aislamiento político de los estadounidenses comunes al tiempo que intensificaban la polarización tanto en la izquierda como en la derecha (lo que dice esta historiadora, afin a los democrátas, debe traducirse como polarización entre democrátas y republicano, recordar esto para leer los diversos materiales provenientes del imperialismo yanqui, de Trump. No se deben repetir los titulares o los párrafos de los discursos de Trump y compania sin un analisis de sus propósitos y su contexto, nota del MPP) automatizaban la política de identidad y contribuían, simultáneamente, a un modelo de participación política distante, difuso e impotente. En un mundo inalámbrico, las «místicas cuerdas de la memoria» —esos vínculos con verdades atemporales que mantenían unida a la nación— se desvanecieron hasta volverse etéreamente invisibles. 

2) Trump insta al público a confiar en la autorregulación de la industria de la IA

La preocupación en Washington alcanza su punto álgido después de que agentes de IA autónomos sondearan sitios web gubernamentales, pero la Casa Blanca se ha centrado en el potencial de esta tecnología.

29 de septiembre de 2026

Se espera que el presidente Donald Trump se reúna este martes con líderes de empresas de inteligencia artificial. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Por Ian Duncan y

Cat Zakrzewski

Tras semanas en las que Washington se vio envuelto en una ola de temor ante la posibilidad de que la inteligencia artificial se descontrolara, el gobierno de Trump intentó este martes tranquilizar a un público escéptico, asegurando que es posible adoptar esta tecnología y confiar en que el propio sector se autorregule.

Acompañado por los ejecutivos tecnológicos más ricos y poderosos del mundo frente al Ala Oeste, el presidente Donald Trump declaró este martes que había firmado con ellos un acuerdo voluntario destinado a garantizar que la industria desarrolle la inteligencia artificial de manera segura.

Trump describió el acuerdo como "moralmente vinculante". El texto sugiere que podría tener sentido formalizar sus términos por escrito "con el paso del tiempo".

El acuerdo culminó una jornada en la que Trump buscó reforzar su argumento de que la IA es un motor de prosperidad que no debería verse frenado por el gobierno.

«Para construir un futuro positivo para el pueblo estadounidense y para el mundo, creemos que cada empresa es responsable de desarrollar su propia tecnología de manera segura y generando confianza entre los clientes y el público», señala el acuerdo.

En virtud de este pacto, las empresas se comprometieron a desarrollar controles internos para evitar que los sistemas de IA escapen a todo control.

«Observo una enorme capacidad de autorregulación», afirmó Trump, rodeado por los directores ejecutivos de Nvidia (Jensen Huang), Anthropic (Dario Amodei) y Meta (Mark Zuckerberg).

El acuerdo representa la medida más significativa adoptada hasta la fecha por la Casa Blanca para responder a la creciente preocupación por los riesgos de la IA, en un momento en que incluso algunos de los principales líderes del sector advierten que las empresas deberían ralentizar su desarrollo.

Los compromisos reflejan muchas de las medidas que ya habían adoptado los laboratorios que desarrollan sistemas avanzados de IA; no obstante, el acuerdo queda muy lejos de la intervención gubernamental que algunos expertos tecnológicos consideran necesaria ante el rápido avance de esta tecnología.

El anuncio del acuerdo se produjo tras un almuerzo —calificado por Trump como «muy productivo» y «extremadamente cordial»— en la Casa Blanca con el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, Mike Johnson, y varios ejecutivos tecnológicos, entre ellos el fundador de Amazon, Jeff Bezos (propietario de *The Washington Post*).

Trump también quiso presentar la IA como una tecnología capaz de aportar comodidad a los estadounidenses. Antes del almuerzo, lanzó America.gov, un *chatbot* gubernamental para consultar información sobre servicios públicos, como parte de una jornada de actividades que contó con la participación de miembros de su gabinete y ejecutivos del sector tecnológico.

Asimismo, Trump firmó una orden para denominar a la IA como «superinteligencia» en los documentos oficiales, en un intento por cambiar la imagen de una tecnología que ha suscitado gran inquietud pública, al tiempo que se resiste a las peticiones de que el gobierno establezca salvaguardas.

El énfasis puesto durante la jornada en el potencial de la IA contrasta con las crecientes dudas sobre la trayectoria de esta tecnología. Las empresas del sector afirman que sus sistemas más recientes son cada vez más potentes y muestran indicios de ser capaces de diseñar sus propios sucesores, aún más avanzados. Sin embargo, a las empresas les ha costado mantener el control de la tecnología, ya que agentes de IA fuera de control han hackeado sistemas corporativos y gubernamentales, y destacadas figuras del sector han advertido que el resultado final podría ser catastrófico para la humanidad.

La semana pasada se reveló que el propio gobierno federal había sido víctima de estos incidentes, con varios sitios web sondeados por agentes de IA desplegados por OpenAI, la empresa creadora de ChatGPT. (The Post mantiene un acuerdo de colaboración de contenidos con OpenAI).

No obstante, a pesar de la creciente preocupación pública y de que los demócratas del Congreso han presionado para que se establezcan regulaciones, Trump ha restado importancia al riesgo en gran medida, calificándolo de "farsa". El martes, acusó a los demócratas de frenar el crecimiento y el progreso tecnológico porque estos podrían beneficiar a los republicanos.

Los acontecimientos del martes impulsan una narrativa distinta a las advertencias emitidas por los directores ejecutivos de las empresas en las últimas semanas. Los numerosos defensores de la IA prevén que esta tecnología dinamizará la economía, ampliará las fronteras de la ciencia y ayudará a curar enfermedades. Sin embargo, ese mensaje ha tenido una acogida limitada entre un público preocupado por la pérdida de empleos y por los bots incontrolados que siembran el caos en internet.

"No nos rendimos ante los temores sobre lo que las tecnologías nos harán", declaró el martes. "Decidimos que esas tecnologías harán cosas realmente increíbles por nosotros".

Los demócratas del Congreso afirmaron que la respuesta de la Casa Blanca no estuvo a la altura de las circunstancias. El senador Mark Warner (demócrata por Virginia), miembro de mayor rango del Comité de Inteligencia del Senado, contrastó las advertencias de los directores ejecutivos con la respuesta del presidente: cambiar el nombre de la IA.

"Pero cambiar el nombre de lo que llamamos inteligencia artificial no sirve para abordar los riesgos muy reales que conllevan los sistemas de IA, cada vez más potentes", señaló Warner.

Una reunión «histórica»

Mientras decenas de funcionarios de la administración y ejecutivos tecnológicos se reunían para almorzar el martes en el Salón Este, apenas se percibían públicamente las divisiones existentes tanto en el sector tecnológico como en la administración Trump respecto al futuro de la inteligencia artificial (IA).

Los ejecutivos presentes en la mesa han expresado opiniones radicalmente opuestas sobre los riesgos de la IA y el papel que debe desempeñar el gobierno para afrontar sus posibles peligros. Trump se sentó entre Elon Musk —quien el mes pasado respaldó los llamamientos a ralentizar el desarrollo de la IA— y Huang, quien se ha opuesto a cualquier ralentización coordinada, argumentando que corresponde a cada empresa garantizar la seguridad de sus productos. Amodei, director de Anthropic y principal impulsor de las peticiones para moderar el ritmo de desarrollo de sistemas avanzados de IA, asistió al almuerzo tras haber mantenido una primera cena privada con Trump el domingo.

Tras el acto, un periodista preguntó a los ejecutivos si coincidían en que no eran necesarias medidas de control gubernamentales y en que el sector podía autorregularse.

«Puedo decirles que la respuesta es sí», afirmó Trump antes de que hablara ninguno de los directores ejecutivos. A continuación, pidió a Huang que interviniera.

MPP: Documents and notes on the world situation and tasks (USA: On midterm elections)

   

The election results of November 2, 2026

On Tuesday the 2nd of this year, the midterm elections were held to renew a third of the House of the Senate, the complete renewal of the House of Representatives and the election of 48 state governors, etc. In the elections, the Republican Party (PR), in the government, and the Democratic Party (PD), the opposition, compete as political representatives of the two factions of the financial oligarchy, which runs the bourgeois dictatorship, the United States (USA). The news in this regard is the following:

"The United States held midterm legislative elections this Tuesday. Exceeding expectations, the Democratic Party has taken control of Congress, achieving a clear majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

In the Senate, a key chamber to curb President Donald Trump's power, Democrats have managed to change the color of seven states: Iowa, Ohio, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kansas, Texas and Maine, some of them traditional Republican strongholds. Thus, they have taken 54 seats in the Senate, comfortably exceeding the threshold of 51 necessary for the majority. In the House, Democrats have won 237 seats, a comfortable majority.

These elections have not only shown the clear disenchantment of the population with the Trump administration, marked by the war in Iran and the rise in fuel prices" (rtve, 03, updated November 4, 2026)

It has also been announced that in the elections for the replacement of governors, the PD has obtained 28 and the PR 20 positions of governors of the States of the Union.

According to the information above, the elections of new reactionary authorities of the Yankee imperialist State have resulted in an overwhelming victory of the PD over the PR in all the disputed areas. A “blue wave” (PD) was expected, according to opinion polls, which considered a tight victory for the Democrats in 4 traditional PR bastions; But what has occurred has been like a “blue tsunami.” The PD has imposed itself with ease, not only in these 4 bastions, but also in three others, which traditionally vote mostly for the Republicans; Furthermore, in Alaska and Mississippi, the representatives for the Senate have yet to be defined in the coming days.

Nothing good comes from reactionary elections for the people

As a result of the midterm electoral farce: the “democrats” will be the main force of the members of the oppressor class in charge of representing and crushing the oppressed in the North American Congress. Nothing good comes from reactionary elections for the people. There is nothing to celebrate for the oppressed.

The possibility of "an assault on heaven through electoral rebellions against billionaires" has not been opened, as stated in the article "United States: the turn of the offended", Pedro Miguel, Opinion, La Jornada, Mexico, October 6, 2026, " (billionaires) who a few months ago felt they were the immovable owners of the planet. Last Tuesday, ordinary people (...) went en masse to the polls to claim their place in the world (…) The crack of hope has opened for the United States. Perhaps (…) it is susceptible to redemption and regeneration (…) Hopefully it is not too late.” That's fine for La Jornada, a newspaper of opportunism at the service of the bureaucratic faction of the big Mexican bourgeoisie in the reactionary government, a big bourgeois government headed by the opportunist Sheinbau of Morena.

Let it be clearly understood: what we have just said regarding the government of Mexico—in reference to the aforementioned article—is that it is a reactionary government representing the big bourgeoisie, headed by an opportunist. It is a big-bourgeois government under Sheinbaum. If we do not state this with full clarity—if we merely call it a "bourgeois government"—we are speaking of the bourgeoisie in a general sense, which encompasses not only the big bourgeoisie but also the national bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie; in our countries, these latter groups often end up trailing behind one of the two factions of the big bourgeoisie. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to clearly define the class character of these governments: whether they head a bourgeois dictatorship under the direction of the financial oligarchy, or a landlord-bureaucratic dictatorship in the service of imperialism, led by the big bourgeoisie.

In the case of the Mexican State, it is a landlord-bureaucratic class dictatorship in the service of imperialism, directed by the big bourgeoisie (the system), while the government serves as the representative of that dictatorship (the form or regime of government). One cannot separate the State from the government—as the revisionists do—by claiming that it is possible to hold the government without holding actual power. Nor can one assume that the armed forces are merely lying dormant; international experience clearly demonstrates the falsity of such arguments. The coups d’état in Indonesia against Sukarno and in Chile against Allende stand as stark, accusatory reminders against such revisionist notions.

Contrary to the pretensions and wishes of the opportunists—as expressed in the article from *La Jornada*—the newly elected representatives in Congress and in state governorships (among whom there may well be opportunists) will serve only to attempt to put a cosmetic face on this "slave-holding republic." Opportunists within Congress or the governorships will be nothing more than the "tribunes of the plebs" in the Senate of ancient Rome: they may have the right to speak, but they possess no decision-making power whatsoever. Mass participation does not undermine the dictatorial system—nor its form of governance—but rather serves to “legitimize” the oppressive congresspeople or governors, anointing them as “duly elected representatives” empowered to crush the oppressed. These reactionary elections cannot bring about any significant change to the system that would transcend its established limits, nor do they imply that the armed forces and the bureaucracy are lying sleeping.

Electoral fraud

Electoral fraud. Furthermore, in these elections as in others, the factions of the financial oligarchy represented by the PR and PD maintain and defend the same fundamental objectives and goals and only have differences in form and means, as such they resort to the well-known machinations, traps, tricks and fraud in the elections. Not before using their position of strength at the federal level or in the States to change electoral rules in their favor and redesign electoral districts. Well, it is a contest between political gamblers where each one commits electoral fraud against the other, throughout the process until the actual counting of the ballots. The reactionary elections are a farce and a fraud all the way down. Nobody can say that they are an expression of the popular will. Therefore, the general tendency is towards electoral absenteeism, that is, the spontaneous rejection of the elections by the masses. To try to counteract this trend, the reaction resorts to "electoral polarization", the "democrats" between Trumpism-democracy, the Republicans and especially Trump, between Republicans-"socialists" or "communists", etc.

Once again, “opinion polls” have failed; The above confirms that surveys or opinion studies are far from being reliable. For this reason, they are highly preferred by the mainstream media and reactionary parties. That is, they are a means to manipulate voters. They are part of the manipulation of voters. As a political scientist has pointed out on German TV's 24 Hours news program, neither polls nor algorithms were needed to know why he was going to be defeated in PR and why the PD was going to prevail; To answer this question, it was enough to look at the cost of living, the increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline to more than $4 as a result of the war in Iran.

Shortly, “opinion surveys” should not be used by us as an objective criterion to describe people's opinions. Like this time, time and again the predictions of opinion companies failed. In 2015, polls failed to predict Benjamin Netanyahu's victory in Israel, the defeat of the Labor Party in the United Kingdom, and a referendum in Greece. In 2016, polls failed to predict Brexit, the vote to withdraw Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union. Neither did Trump's victory over Clinton.

On the electoral failure of the ultra-reactionary Trump administration

(the relationship between the economic base, politics, and war)

The conflict between the two factions during this electoral juncture has been fueled by the development of the class struggle, both domestically and internationally. Consider the relationship between the economic base, politics, and war. As the process of parasitism and decay within imperialism advances, the economy of the imperialist nation declines—a phenomenon that stands in contradiction to the ever-greater power concentrated in the hands of the financial oligarchy, both at home and abroad.

The electoral failure of the governing party—the Republican Party—is linked, on one hand, to the growth of popular struggle against the Trump administration’s domestic and foreign policies, as well as its imperialist wars of aggression against the peoples of the world; and, on the other, to the ongoing contest between the two factions—a contradiction among bourgeois factions that unfolds through a complex interplay of both collusion and conflict.

Based on the official results, Trump and his party have lost the confidence of the very voters who, just two years prior, had brought about a “red tsunami” (a surge for the Republicans). This has been a recurring trend in global politics for over five decades: governments elected with overwhelming support often lose the trust of the electorate after only a short time.

This “shift in mood” among voters is an expression of the evolution of the objective situation. Therefore, in addition to the causes already listed—rising cost of living, lack of jobs, inflation, and the surge in gasoline prices to over $4 per gallon due to the war against Iran—research from various American institutes indicates that in the states most affected by the installation of large data centers for "super-intelligence" (artificial intelligence, or AI), voters have expressed dissatisfaction with candidates from the PR [Republican Party]. This is because these massive data centers consume vast amounts of energy and water, driving up energy costs and creating problems for local agriculture; furthermore, by occupying large tracts of land, they diminish the value of nearby real estate. For this reason, media commentators are echoing Clinton’s famous line: "It’s the economy, stupid!"

A clear example of this trend can be seen in the case of the newly elected governor of Texas—the candidate chosen by the PD [Democratic Party], Gina Hinojosa. According to media reports, her election was driven by her opposition to the construction of large data centers—a byproduct of the AI ​​boom in Texas—and she has pledged to put a brake on this expansion.

Hinojosa has stated that, for the time being, she intends to freeze the sale of a nature reserve in the state to Elon Musk’s company, SpaceX, and halt the construction of these data centers—at least until protective measures are implemented and local authorities are given a say in the decision-making process. That is where the catch lies.

Following the electoral contest, we can expect collusion regarding the freedom granted to AI companies—currently the largest monopolists—as they operate with minimal oversight. We foresee a repeat of the same pattern of collusion and conflict between the two major parties, much like what occurred during the late 20th and early 21st centuries regarding the control of the internet. For this reason, we have included as an appendix excerpts from the book *These Truths: A History of the United States* by Jill Lepore—specifically from Part Four, which addresses this subject—under the heading "History Repeats Itself." Following this, we also include a report on a meeting between Trump and major AI oligarchs. It is worth noting that Elon Musk was once a friend of Obama, is now a friend of Trump—but what about later? ...

Regarding immigration, Trump himself has effectively validated the concerns of those who have protested the cruelty with which deportations are carried out—a process that, notably, disproportionately affects non-monopolistic businesses. Furthermore, since Obama actually deported more immigrants than Trump, the issue is more a matter of form than of substance. Democratic candidates who won in border states and districts have committed to maintaining border security and continuing the deportation of undocumented individuals.

The failure of the imperialist war of aggression against Iran did not become a major campaign issue used to manipulate voters—unlike the Vietnam War—but it was nonetheless present, particularly through its consequences: high gasoline prices for households and farmers, as well as Trump’s broken promise to avoid the costly, endless wars that characterized the terms of his predecessors. This has served as one of the channels through which the contradiction between the imperialist superpower—and other imperialist powers—and the oppressed nations of the Third World has manifested. In this way, the Iranian people’s war of resistance against imperialist-Zionist aggression has had an impact on the recent U.S. elections, influencing the shifting balance of power among various imperialist factions.

The points raised above illustrate the evolution of the objective situation within the United States—the sole hegemonic imperialist superpower—as well as the development of the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The United States—caught within the contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations, as well as the third contradiction, that of inter-imperialist rivalry—sees these tensions fuel the struggle between the two factions of the Yankee financial oligarchy. This process facilitates one faction’s dominance over the other within the context of reactionary elections. Consequently, the imperialist state continues to evolve, further driving absolute centralization in the form of presidential absolutism. Based on current commentary and the prevailing situation, no significant shifts in the reactionary political agenda are on the horizon; as always, there will be no major changes to the domestic or international policies of Yankee imperialism.

Regarding the points raised in the preceding paragraph, we include below a commentary on the recent election results, taken from an article—the title of which is itself quite telling—titled “The Dangers of a Lame-Duck Trump How Far Will He Go to Make Peace—and War? Daniel W. Drezner and Elizabeth N. Saunders November 4, 2026 (published in *Foreign Affairs* on November 4, 2026). We quote the following:

“With the midterms over, U.S. President Donald Trump is now a lame duck. Second-term presidents who lose control of Congress have to face the reality that the time for signature legislation or other domestic policy initiatives has passed. As they think about their legacy, lame ducks often turn to foreign policy, where the power of the presidency allows them to act unfettered by pesky domestic politics. It is not unusual for a lame duck to reach for a final, lofty goal abroad (…)

Trump’s lame-duck period will not be like those of his predecessors,

Trump is the first president in the past 100 years (...) to have a second lame-duck period—this time lasting more than two years

.

With Democrats soon to be in control of the House and the Senate, the threat of impeachment or investigations into the Trump family’s business dealings will likely make the president feel cornered and angry. And that’s what makes the remainder of Trump’s term so dangerous. A boxed-in Trump, (...) may well lash out internationally. And Congress, even if controlled by Democrats, will have little power over his day-to-day management of foreign policy.

There are plenty of ways Trump could act out: issuing fresh threats against Canada, launching new attacks on U.S. alliances, or colluding with Russia or China at the expense of Ukraine or Taiwan. But to turn those threats into policy would require serious effort, such as repositioning U.S. troops or painstakingly negotiating with other great powers.

 (...) 

ONE FOR THE ROAD

Trump is most likely to take action in Iran. He seems to believe that escalating the war could break the stalemate and rescue his legacy. But Iranian leaders won’t back down in the face of more force. Instead, they will probably ramp up attacks on commercial shipping, strike Gulf allies, and ignore diplomatic overtures until Trump leaves office. Moreover, Trump’s own options may be limited: a more radical U.S. escalation against Iran, such as deploying troops to Kharg Island, would probably be so unpopular within his base that he would avoid it. Even Trump’s biggest supporters are growing tired of the high prices that his war has caused. Renewed conflict could plunge the world into economic crisis.

 (... )

For Trump, an attack on Cuba would be attractive because it would not require too much in the way of military assets and, at least in his mind, would solve a problem that has bedeviled U.S. presidents stretching back to the end of the Eisenhower administration. Trump might have already moved on Cuba had he not gotten bogged down in Iran. Of course, as the political scientist Alexander Downes has shown, using force to achieve regime change rarely works and often leads to unpredictable consequences—in the case of Cuba, it might mean a new influx of refugees to the United States.

Trump has already exhausted many of the obvious lame-duck gambits.”

Thus, Trump with the loss of control of Congress has no choice but to resort to the Presidential Veto against the laws approved by the Legislature, govern by presidential decrees and manage foreign policy and the war of aggression. But, in this he is doomed to greater failures. Yankee imperialism will go from failure to failure in its process of collapse until it is swept away by the revolution through the people's war.

............ we will continue with the topic