The is the conclusion of Dan La Botz’s Working Paper: Obama, The Crisis & The Movements from Solidarity. The whole piece is chock full of food for thought and is recommended to readers. RR
The Left and its Tasks
The U.S. left is a motley crew, politically speaking. Some on the left support Obama, others wish to build a movement that will make Obama be the president they believe he might be. Further to the left, Solidarity and other socialist organizations call for an independent politics and independent movements to challenge Obama and his policies.
The liberal left, represented by The Nation, only a few months ago absolutely enamored of Obama, has quickly become more critical, though it still tends to be critically supportive. In a recent article Robert L. Borosage and Katrina vanden Heuvel write that, “Without a grassroots uprising that challenges business as usual in Washington, we aren’t likely to get the change we were promised, much less the change we need.” Borosage and vanden Heuvel, however, still put their emphasis on build a movement that can support and pressure the president, rather than building a movement that challenges him and his party.
The Communist Party and its publication The People’s Weekly World, which also supported Obama in the election, take a similar position. Sam Webb wrote in the May 1 issue, “Currently, the level of mobilization of the diverse coalition that elected Obama doesn’t match what is necessary to win his administration’s immediate legislative and political agenda, let alone more far-reaching reforms.” Webb goes on, “And herein lies the role of the left. Its main task, as it has been throughout our country’s history, is to assist in reassembling, activating, uniting and giving a voice to common demands that unite this broad majority as well as draw in other people who didn’t vote for Obama.” The article makes clear that those on the left are to be drawn in behind Obama to push him forward so that the forces of finance capital do not triumph and pull his administration to the right.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which claims to be the country’s largest socialist organization, published in its journal, The Democratic Left (Fall 2008), an election year statement by its honorary chair Frances Fox Piven, in which she argued for support for Obama. She wrote: “If turnout remains high, an Obama victory could mean a realignment of American electoral politics around a majority coalition similar to the one forged in the New Deal era, with African Americans and Latinos replacing the white South as the reliable core of the coalition. The composition of this new coalition would encourage presidential rhetoric that in turn could spur movement activism. It would simultaneously generate the hope that is always the fuel of movements from the bottom of society, and it would put in place a regime that is vulnerable to those movements. If there is political salvation in the American future, it can only be forged through the dynamic interplay between progressive social movements and elected politicians.”
In the Spring 2009 issue of The Democratic Left (Spring 2009) carries an article by Bill Fletcher, titled “What Now for the Left?” writes, “The left tends to either abstain from electoral politics; marginalize itself with small-party candidacies in partisan elections; or tail after the Democrats. It is time for the left to invest in a different approach, one that I and others have called a neo-Rainbow approach, which emphasizes an independent politics and organization that operates inside and outside the Democratic Party. Working the electoral arena that way opens up opportunities to develop a mass base and hearing for a left/progressive agenda.”
Solidarity argues that these approaches lead in the end to the subordination of the labor and social movements to the Democratic Party. All of these positions suggest that the movements should push Obama forward and upward, rather than building a politically independent movement with the ultimate goal of pushing him and his party aside. When leftists argue for supporting Obama and the Democrats, they disorient the movements and make it difficult to build the opposition needed to change foreign and domestic policy. As long as people think that Obama can be pressured to bring about health care reform, they will not build the independent movement that will be necessary to really make that happen. The inside/outside approach, advocated by Fletcher, tends in practice to become an inside pressure group approach – unless there is a serious strategy to carry voters out of the Democratic Party.
The International Socialist Organization (ISO), in the March-April, 2009 issue of International Socialist Review carries an article about “Obama’s Mixed Message,” suggesting that his talk of change has not been fulfilled in his political agenda. The ISR article continues, “Real change will be possible if and when the Obama Generation develops the political maturity and self-confidence to realize they don’t have to wait on leaders or symbols to bring about a better world: They can and must organize to make history on their own.” We in Solidarity share this view, which is another way of arguing, as we do here, that we must have an independent social movement if we are to make significant change in America. Such a social movement we would argue must eventually find political expression in a working class party.
Solidarity acknowledges that many social movement activists identify and work within the Democratic Party. We also know there is currently no viable, independent Left party to provide a political and electoral expression of our movements. Thus, we work with these activists everyday to build militant movements to the furthest extent possible, regardless of the particular face of capitalist power in the U.S. But we maintain that many of the crucial reform goals of these movements are incompatible with the dominant politics and historical role of the Democratic Party. Looking for influence within – or relationship with this or that figure in – a Democratic Party administration or coalition will weaken and disorient the movements.
Organizing and Program
At the present moment, as we face a deep economic crisis, we find that there is a great disjuncture between, one the one hand, the sense that we need a political, economic and social program that speaks to the crisis, and on the other, the low level resistance and struggle in society. We in the left have a wealth of historic programs we can draw upon from the socialist movement, while the crisis itself presents us with a ready made list of demands:
* Jobs at a living wage for all who need work.
* Housing for all who need homes.
* Health care for all without cost.
* Free public education K to Ph.D.
* Free and adequate public transportation.
To achieve these demands we can see that we would need a more elaborate political program:
* End the wars and use the military budget for social needs.
* Socialize and transform U.S. industry under the control of citizens, workers and consumers.
* End the carbon-based economy of coal and petroleum to stop global warming.
* Take up the fight for the rights of people of color, immigrants, GLBTQs, and other groups which suffer discrimination.
* Create a working class political party to fight for these measures.
We can also see that immediate demands and a political program, to really lead to change, would have to be organized and conceived in such a way as to lead to a transition to socialism. Virtually all of the groups on the left have developed programs such as these, more elaborate and sometimes more elegant than the items listed here. What is missing, however, is the connection between the labor and social movement’s struggle and such a program.
We in Solidarity put our emphasis therefore not on the development of a program or the construction of a political party, but on the rebuilding of the labor and social movements at the grassroots. We believe that at this time socialists should put their emphasis on rebuilding a layer of committed activists in the working class with a class struggle perspective, as well as reconstructing such a group within the social movements. When movements become large and powerful, then programs take on real importance. Unfortunately in most parts of the country the movement does not have the size or strength to put forward a program except in the most limited way.
Sometimes even small movements facing big problems can and must put forward programs which speak to the magnitude of the issues and the needs of working people. So, for example, rank-and-file Detroit autoworkers called for the take over of the failing auto companies by a public trust that would transform what had been auto into a new transportation and energy corporation organized along environmental lines with workers having significant involvement in the actual running of the new organization. Such a program in that case put forward a vision of a different way of thinking about the industry, one which was transformative, environmentalist, publicly owned and worker managed. Where such programs seem necessary and appropriate they should be advance, but such cases may be few at this time.
When movements—labor unions, immigrants, people of color, GLBTQ people, environmentalists—begin to intersect, then the combined movements begin to put forward programs which resemble those of working class parties. We have not yet reached such a stage.
Left Unity
We in Solidarity believe that we can engage in this task together with other socialists who share our commitment to building the movement while discussing our commonalities and our differences. We have found that in our work in the unions and social movements that we often share many of the ideals and methods of other left organizations and collectives which may not come from our political traditions. Since 2007 we have been in discussions with a number of groups—the Bay Area Activist Study Circle, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, the League of Revolutionaries for a New America, Left Turn, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, and the New York Study Group—and this summer will work together on the Revolutionary Work in Our Times Conference to be held in Chicago from July 31 – August 2. We see a conference such as this as a way to advance our common agenda of building the movements. We believe that a united revolutionary left will be essential in building the forces that can confront the crisis, challenge the Obama administration, and begin to create a revolutionary movement in this country.
Pingback: Van Jones Helps Save Obama’s Credibility with the Reactionary Right « Advance the Struggle
I’m very serious about my socialist project. At the moment, it consists of theoretical work on what 21st Century Socialism is, and what it isn’t, along with revolutionary education among the more advanced fighters to win them to it. Where it makes sense to propose wider structural reforms that can serve as a bridge to socialism I advocate those as well. See David Schweickart’s Letter to Obama in the recent Tikkun as a case in point. Or any number of items at http://solidarityeconomy.net
To me, socialism is much more serious than tacking a graph on at the end of a flyer or speech, and requires serious work. I’ve been working steadily on it for more than 15 years in the Chicago Third Wave Study Group, at http://thirdwavestudygroup.blogspot.com Jerry Harris and I produced a book, CyberRadicalism: A New Left for a Global Age, summing up some of our findings. Get it on Amazon or http://stores.lulu.com/changermaker Harris has also recently produced ‘Dialectics of Globalization’ and David Schweickart has ‘After Capitalism’ Out. I consider these organizing works for serious approaches to socialism in today’s world.
It overlaps with my mass democratic projects, but it’s not the same. Today, if you know how to count, the prospect for running a socialist party as a contender for posts and power for the working class are remote and not yet that useful.
I don’t like the term ‘anti-capitalist’ party. It’s either too left or too right. If you really mean socialism, say so. If not, then promote an anti-financial oligarchy package that serves the working class, but can also appeal to sectors of productive high-road business.
The text of my ‘Eleven Talking Points on 21st Century Socialism’ are available on ZNet as well as my personal blog, http://carldavidson.blogspot.com, for anyone interested.
LikeLike
Carl,
You haven’t read this blog have you? We are nothing if not openly socialist. And since I do know how to count I’ll give you the number of years that “progressives” have been trying to do what you are trying to do. It’s been 103 years since the “cross of gold speech”. And the number of “progressive parties” born in the barren womb of the Democrats? 0. You’ve had your advertisement for your project. Now good luck.
RR
LikeLike
Carl,
Since the crisis is caused by capitalism I suggest that any genuine alternative has to be anti-capitalist in perspective, not an impossible pie-in-the-sky kinder and gentler capitalism, or it is not much of an alternative. You can’t reform an apple into an orange. Yep, that’s not easy work. There are no short cuts to it either through the Democrats or by simply proclaiming “we socialists are right, join us.” We’re going to have to agree to disagree. We have two different perspectives. Good luck on your project.
RR
LikeLike
A critical mass to fashion a political instrument that will serve the working class and its allies in the electoral arena, and belong to them.
You have to offer an alternative. You start with an alternative platform. Our PDA platform here is ‘Out Now’, EFCA, Green Jobs, HR 676 and debt relief, especially for youth. I assure you, this is not the package of our local Blue Dog and his crew, or the Dems at the top. Once you have the strength, you run alternative tickets. And if you want a real multiparty democracy, you work for election law reform, especially fusion and IRV.
Some Dems, even most at the top, are dunderheads when it comes to fighting the far right. They tuck their tails between their legs. But some are not. The main tactical point is not to split an election tally between third party and Dem progressives, so that the ‘Tea Party’ GOPers, who are feeding the far right, take the post instead. When we take down a Dem, we want someone better to take the post. You can’t always tell in advance, but most times you can.
LikeLike
Carl,
I have plenty of experience resisting the far right and have only been obstructed in that work by the Democratic Party. If Democrats really are a break on fascists/right-wing populists/etc. how come every time they get elected we end up getting Reagan or Newt or W. in the next election cycle? How does one replace the Democrats without offering an alternative to the Democrats? A critical mass to do what?
RR
LikeLike
We do need to prepare against a fascist danger, inside and outside of electoral politics. It’s real and there’s no demagogy on my part. We’ve got three dead cops at the hands of a local neo-Nazi youth, and a run on ammo in all the local gun stores. Rightwing populism is a serious and dangerous trend, even if a minority, and a special problem in the working class, especially in the more backward sectors around here. We have a responsibility to see to it that our electoral tactics don’t put them or their close allies in positions of power.
But you’re missing the larger point. I’m not interested in making the Democratic party into ‘something it cannot be’; it has to be replaced. I work there because that’s where the most progressive and politically active workers are, and we build our own organizations not subject to any discipline of Dem officialdom. When we reach critical mass, together with others inside and outside this arena, the Dem officialdom will most likely split from us, and we will supplant it with something better.
So far, I see more progress here than I ever did with any of my third party efforts. I’m not saying third party efforts can’t work as well. Maybe in some places it can, so go for it if you think you can get somewhere, and I mean produce something that’s mainly blue collar. But it makes no sense where I am.
LikeLike
Carl,
Since well before William Jenning Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech “progressives” have tried to make the Democratic Party something it can not be. They are an institutional party and an institutional party requisitely defends the institutions that give it life. Those institutions requisitely defend the interests of the class in power. All of these years of the union movement looking to the Democrats to protect their interests has gotten, what exactly? Not even the repeal of Taft-Hartley and they’ve been demanding that as part of their support for 60 years now. And nearly every election they claim to be holding the line against “proto-fascists” as a way to frighten folks away from independent politics and into the cul-de-sac of the Dems. If every election cycle really does see the spectre of fascism we need to dump parliamentary politics altogether and go for civil war since fascists are not known for respecting electoral outcomes. This is just demagoguery. In the end I think that “progressives” and socialists want two very different things. Progressives wish capitalism would respond to the needs of workers (hence their support of institutional parties)and socialists want workers to act on their own needs (hence their rejection of institutional parties). You are right; they are two different projects.
RR
LikeLike
You’ll have to do better than this, MN Roy, if you want to do polemics with the grownups. You obviously know little about me and what I do or think about things.
I demonstrate against the war nearly every week here in Beaver County, Western PA, and took part in a major regional of UFPJ’s in Pittburgh not too long ago. then we had one on Wall St to link the war and the economy April 4.
I don’t expect the Democrats to implement any major structural reforms, certainly not of their own accord. We’ve got a Blue Dog jerk as our local congressman, and we cross swords with him nearly every week. When we’re strong enough, we’ll take him down. That’s why we have our own PDA group fighting for ‘out now,’ EFCA, Green Jobs and HR 676. We just got the city councils of two mill towns here, Aliquippa and Ambridge, to endorse it. But to get it, it’s going to take considerable street heat as well. We’re setting the conditions for it with our ‘healthcare not warfare’ campaign, where we have dozens of locals signed on.
And we’re very clear on Obama. We support him where he has a decent program, like Green Jobs, and oppose him where he’s dead wrong, like the wars. If he doesn’t change course, they will destroy him, his presidency and anything decent he may want to do. But he also defend him against the rightwing proto-fascists who would like to take him down ‘by any means necessary,’ and they’re killing a few people already to show us what they have in mind.
From your post, it is seems pretty clear that you have no idea about what’s involved with organizing the working class at the base. We live in different worlds. Let’s keep it that way–you stay in yours, and I’ll stay in mine. We’ll see who manages to organize the power to do some earth-moving. At the moment neither of us have much to speak of, but I’m much happier being in my position than yours.
LikeLike
Well , RR, now you know you finally made the big time, when none other than Carl Davidson shows up on your site to beat the drums for “lesser evilism.” For all his bluster and bravado about “forces and building blocks” and “strategy” are, as all of us know by now, nothimg more than a cover for supporting any and every Democrat. Carl, after all, was one of the originators of “Anybody But Bush” amongst the “left” back in 2004. Well he finally got his wish last year.
Only considering Obama’s track record as imperialist warmonger second to none and errand boy for Wall Street, I thought that Carl might be laying low these days. Maybe there aren’t any Democats around for Carl to get “grassroots alliances and base communities” to support this time of the year. You certainly don’t see him at any mass antiwar demonstrations being organiuzed by his pals at UFPJ, for the simple reason that there are none now that there’s a Democrat in the White House!
Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe they are off, secretly and unknown to the rest of us “ultra-lefists” hung up with our project,” “building the political instrument that will push the two dominant parties aside” by burying themselves completely in one of those “two dominant parties.” And considering the record of the Democrats when it came to “restructuring,” ie, gutting the auto industry, we can see just how successful they have been when it comes to “the immediate needs and structural reforms required by the working class.”
One thing Carl is right about, however, is that “there’s a lot of earth to be moved before we’ in a position to brush the Democrats aside.” Only for that to happen, I’m afraid that Carl and his friends will be amongst the “earth…moved,” in order to do the brushing.
LikeLike
Leaving aside the Soli-speak and PC lingo, LaBotz is pretty much on the mark as to what the real left needs to do to ” challenge Obama and his policies.” Indeed, his laundry list of demands reminds me of what people like us used to refer to as “transitional demands.”
Only don’t hold your breath waiting for the ISO to “challenge Obama.” Unless, of course, his popularity takes a nose-dive amongst the “progressive” milleau that the ISO tails after, as its “left wing,” of course.
Unlike Solidarity, the ISO refused to endorse Nader or McKinney, fearing isolation from what it refers to as the “Obama Generation.” It joined with the latter in partying in the streets when Obama won, pretty much proclaiming that anything was possible in this “new era.” Anything but challenging the illusions surrounding the pro-war, pro-Wall Street president, that is. For the ISO, the latter is about as rare as “progressive” reforms are coming from Obama.
Even today, the ISO refuses to characterize Obama as the bag-man for Wall Street that he is, focusing on the unpopular Democrats in Congress instead. Indeed, you’d hardly know he was a capitalist politician, representing the millionaires who own him, rather than the millions who voted for him, from reading the ISR or SW. Having published a slew of articles trying to portray Lenin as a super small-d “democrat,” they probably forgot about the stuff in “State and Revolution” describing the state as an instrument used by one class to oppress another. When Obama’s “betrayals” become even too much for the ISO to swallow, criticism is left to others like John Pilger or Jeremy Scahill who have no connection to them.
For the ISO, “pressuring the politicians” via petty-bourgeois protest politics is about as good as good is gonna’ get. Only thanks to the “Obama movement,” which took everyone off the streets and into the polling places for the Democrats, there isn’t even that anymore. I guess they didn’t pay much attention to the article they published by Mike Davis in the “roundtable” on “Obama’s First 100 Days” which made precisely that point.
That’s the sorry reality that the ISO refuses to recognize. That and the need to politically confront and defeat the “lesser evilism” that its progressive pals push. Only as long as the latter help pack their “Socalism” confabs with their star drawing power and boost the circulation of the ISR with their articles, don’t count on it.
LikeLike
I’ve with Bill Fletcher, but I’d assert we are building the political instrument that will push the two dominant parties aside, and other backward forces as well.
The forces and building blocks of that instrument are today ‘inside and outside’ the Democratic arena, especially the workers and minority communities at the grassroots. And that’s exactly why we need an ‘inside-outside’ strategy to reach them and organize within the electoral arena.
Dan LaBotz and Solidarity can’t see their way to this. Fine. That’s their business, and I’m sure there are others who share it. Good luck with your project.
But a good number of us are choosing a different course. It involves nonpartisan (not anti-partisan) grassroots alliances and base communities, with political independence seeking common platform and tickets based of the immediate needs and structural reforms required by the working class. And yes, some of the people we will vote for will be Democrats, and others will not.
Over the years I’ve worked in the Citizens Party, New Party, Labor Party and Green Party, as well as certain Democrats. There’s nothing magical about any third party. And I still consider them, or their successors, allies strategically, even if at the moment they are largely a cul-de-sac that walls us off from the more politically conscious and active workers. Of course, that can change, and hopefully for the better and soon. But there’s a lot of earth to be moved before we’ in a position to brush the Democrats aside.
LikeLike