During President Obama’s recent efforts to explain his capitulation to the Republicans on extending the Bush regime’s tax cuts for the wealthy, the chief executive officer of American corporatism repeatedly pointed to the agreement as a “compromise.”

Indeed, Obama has made “compromise” a central tenet of the rest of his term, claiming that his deals with Congressional Republicans represent the “best” of American politics.

Well, first things first. Was Obama’s deal a “compromise” agreement with the Republicans? No. In fact, quite the opposite. The only person who compromised in the course of negotiating this deal was Obama. The Republicans were able to get everything they wanted.

Not only did the GOP get their tax cuts for the wealthy extended for two years, but they also got tax cuts for businesses, a reduced estate tax and a reduction in Social Security taxes. More importantly, though, the Republicans got a free pass on extending unemployment insurance payments for workers who have been out of a job for more than six months.

The White House and its shills have pointed to the unemployment extension and said that is where Boehner, McConnell, etc., compromised. However, as numerous dissenting Democrats and liberal commentators have pointed out, Republicans may make noise about “deficit spending,” but they have always voted for extensions when unemployment is high.

After all, the last thing the Congressional Republicans want is to be seen as cutting off the unemployed just before Christmas. They would never fully recover from such an act.

So, why did Obama cave in to the GOP, and why is he calling it a “compromise?”

In any substantively democratic system — whether it is a capitalist or a workers’ democracy — compromise is a central pillar. Whenever representatives or delegates from diverse and differing opinions meet in an assembly, it is inevitable that there will be a need for compromise in order to pass legislation, improve working relationships and get projects done.

But compromise implies that both sides move, make tactical concessions and agreements, and try to build a consensus around deals that do not completely satisfy everyone.

Since the 1990s, and especially after the corporatist coup d’état of 2000, the practical definition of compromise changed. These days, “compromise” is a code word for the Republicans getting everything they want at the expense of the Democrats. At the same time, the activist bases of both parties are standing on the sidelines screaming, “No Compromise!”

After 10 years of corporatist rule and the clearing out of what remained of the democratic content in the American political system, the last of the load-bearing pillars of the old democratic republic has been pulled down by both parties and their active supporters.

When “compromise” becomes a one-way street, the foundation of a democratic system — whether it is nominal or substantial — becomes vulnerable to the quicksand of moralism, emotionalism or other forms of demagogy. When, on top of this, the alignment of forces become crystallized and compromise becomes synonymous with weakness or capitulation, to speak of a democratic political system is to engage in delusional nostalgia, at best.

We communists have no illusions in corporatist capitalism, which is why we reject compromise with the parties and movements of the ruling classes. At the same time, we recognize that there will be a need to reach compromise agreements with fellow working-class organizations and parties within the framework of a workers’ republic. The workers’ republic will be an extreme democracy, and consensus will be the watchword for policy.