This is why I’ve always advocated for socialists to call themselves “socialists” rather than using vague and easily coopted terms like “leftist”, “progressive”, “populist” and so on. Part of building a distinct identity to rally around is using a distinct word.
Yes, I know. All of them are hard. But Justice Dems has 8 members, not just AOC. I recall when we only had one, Dellums. This is progress. Yes, it's hard. But the third party efforts outside the Dem tent are not only hard, they are all dead ends. I've been in every one of them. Start at the base. In my case, getting Summer Lee and SaraInamarrato elected was a good start.
Working within a bourgeois party, in an imperialist state no less, is like trying to stop a ship from sinking while everyone else is shooting holes into the hull. And eventually, you in the head.
There are very good reasons why Lenin exclusively advocated for very limited tactical cooperation with bourgeois and/or reformist parties if and only if this happened within a communist party apparatus, and only for the purposes of propaganda.
People like to attribute his focus on the party as the primary organisation to some sort of authoritarian leadership style, but there is a practical reason: The (vanguard) party is able to learn from practical mistakes, and immediately implement binding policy corrections, where movements pull into ten different directions and tend to splinter.
And that's a primary weakness even within the DSA: They are too loosely organized and are too dependent on being a sad appendage of the Democratic Party. Instead, an independent labor party is needed, that is primarily focused on separating a socialist base from both the Republicans and the Democrats while ignoring tactical electoral considerations wherever possible.
The point isn't to win elections, it's to build a radical mass base first, and only once that's done to contest seats where that radical mass base is sufficiently developed. That is a long-term process and necessarily needs to include union + community organizing.
Or to say it with Lenin: "We must take upon ourselves the task of organising an all-round political struggle under the leadership of our Party in such a manner as to make it possible for all oppositional strata to render their fullest support to the struggle and to our Party." - What is to Be Done?, 1903
Partially agree, partially disagree. I agree with you on the need for a party general and an independent labor party today in the US.
That said, I think working through DSA is essential. It's the only mass membership, national political org of the left in the US (the only game in town) and if there is a labor party in the future it will build in part on work being done by DSA now.
Build the base first and then contest elections someday in the future also doesn't seem right to me. I'm not sure Lenin would have agreed with that approach either — check out Lars Lih's history ("Lenin Rediscovered") if you haven't already, from that I took away the view that one does not postpone the political struggle until some date in the future. I think there's a powerful and important connection between base building through particular struggles in workplaces, neighborhoods, and in mass mobilizations on the one hand and representing those struggles and bringing them together in an overall program. That latter work is something that happens through contests for state power. In authoritarian regimes those contests take place in the form of subversive activity and popular insurrections. In capitalist democracies those contests take place largely through elections.
You gotta persuade two types of people to do it and then it has a shot: most labor leaders and a good chunk of congressional Democrats (maybe 40 or so?). Nobody is going to follow a solely grassroots effort.
But the congressional Democrats piece of it may require primaries. That is the problem with simply waving away the surrogate issue.
I planted that flag with Commoner and the Citizen's Party in 1980. Then the New Party and its 'Fusion' fight. The with the Greens, and their desire to defeat liberals first. Then with Jerry Brown's 'Labor' candidacy, then Labor Party Advocates. All failed, and despite Mr. From, I was an active member of all of them, I know where all the bodies are buried. The only 'planting of a flag' to gain a foothold and resonance in my 50 years is with AOC, the Justice Dems and Bernie. I'm sticking with them.
Respectfully, others tried to gain a foothold in the Democratic Party at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, through the McCarthy campaign in 1968, the McGovern campaign and the New Politics push to change the party in the early 1970s, through the Democratic Agenda led by Michael Harrington et al, through the Ted Kennedy campaign in 1980, the Jackson campaigns, Progressive Democrats of America in the 2000s, etc etc. All also failed. Appeals to history only get us so far when the left has been on its back foot inside and outside the party. We'll need another way to think through these questions. Here's one challenge for your argument that is not based on which strategy failed more memorably in the past: Justice Democrats is on life support and AOC has pledged to stop supporting primary challenges inside the party. Why is that happening? What does that tell us about what happens to reform efforts inside the Democratic tent?
The problem with “sticking with them” is they have made some major leadership mistakes that have limited how much their flag-planting is sustainable. A major problem, as I see it, is that these elected officials acting in a certain way (which they aren’t doing now) is actually very important for what Meyer/French want to be able to do with DSA. So I am starting to think we need to discuss new ways to get them to behave differently. That is a very difficult question. But I do think there are more answers than I have seen elaborated yet.
This is why I’ve always advocated for socialists to call themselves “socialists” rather than using vague and easily coopted terms like “leftist”, “progressive”, “populist” and so on. Part of building a distinct identity to rally around is using a distinct word.
Couldn't agree more. So important.
Lars Lih moment😎😎😎
Yes, I know. All of them are hard. But Justice Dems has 8 members, not just AOC. I recall when we only had one, Dellums. This is progress. Yes, it's hard. But the third party efforts outside the Dem tent are not only hard, they are all dead ends. I've been in every one of them. Start at the base. In my case, getting Summer Lee and SaraInamarrato elected was a good start.
Working within a bourgeois party, in an imperialist state no less, is like trying to stop a ship from sinking while everyone else is shooting holes into the hull. And eventually, you in the head.
There are very good reasons why Lenin exclusively advocated for very limited tactical cooperation with bourgeois and/or reformist parties if and only if this happened within a communist party apparatus, and only for the purposes of propaganda.
People like to attribute his focus on the party as the primary organisation to some sort of authoritarian leadership style, but there is a practical reason: The (vanguard) party is able to learn from practical mistakes, and immediately implement binding policy corrections, where movements pull into ten different directions and tend to splinter.
And that's a primary weakness even within the DSA: They are too loosely organized and are too dependent on being a sad appendage of the Democratic Party. Instead, an independent labor party is needed, that is primarily focused on separating a socialist base from both the Republicans and the Democrats while ignoring tactical electoral considerations wherever possible.
The point isn't to win elections, it's to build a radical mass base first, and only once that's done to contest seats where that radical mass base is sufficiently developed. That is a long-term process and necessarily needs to include union + community organizing.
Or to say it with Lenin: "We must take upon ourselves the task of organising an all-round political struggle under the leadership of our Party in such a manner as to make it possible for all oppositional strata to render their fullest support to the struggle and to our Party." - What is to Be Done?, 1903
Partially agree, partially disagree. I agree with you on the need for a party general and an independent labor party today in the US.
That said, I think working through DSA is essential. It's the only mass membership, national political org of the left in the US (the only game in town) and if there is a labor party in the future it will build in part on work being done by DSA now.
Build the base first and then contest elections someday in the future also doesn't seem right to me. I'm not sure Lenin would have agreed with that approach either — check out Lars Lih's history ("Lenin Rediscovered") if you haven't already, from that I took away the view that one does not postpone the political struggle until some date in the future. I think there's a powerful and important connection between base building through particular struggles in workplaces, neighborhoods, and in mass mobilizations on the one hand and representing those struggles and bringing them together in an overall program. That latter work is something that happens through contests for state power. In authoritarian regimes those contests take place in the form of subversive activity and popular insurrections. In capitalist democracies those contests take place largely through elections.
You gotta persuade two types of people to do it and then it has a shot: most labor leaders and a good chunk of congressional Democrats (maybe 40 or so?). Nobody is going to follow a solely grassroots effort.
But the congressional Democrats piece of it may require primaries. That is the problem with simply waving away the surrogate issue.
I planted that flag with Commoner and the Citizen's Party in 1980. Then the New Party and its 'Fusion' fight. The with the Greens, and their desire to defeat liberals first. Then with Jerry Brown's 'Labor' candidacy, then Labor Party Advocates. All failed, and despite Mr. From, I was an active member of all of them, I know where all the bodies are buried. The only 'planting of a flag' to gain a foothold and resonance in my 50 years is with AOC, the Justice Dems and Bernie. I'm sticking with them.
Respectfully, others tried to gain a foothold in the Democratic Party at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, through the McCarthy campaign in 1968, the McGovern campaign and the New Politics push to change the party in the early 1970s, through the Democratic Agenda led by Michael Harrington et al, through the Ted Kennedy campaign in 1980, the Jackson campaigns, Progressive Democrats of America in the 2000s, etc etc. All also failed. Appeals to history only get us so far when the left has been on its back foot inside and outside the party. We'll need another way to think through these questions. Here's one challenge for your argument that is not based on which strategy failed more memorably in the past: Justice Democrats is on life support and AOC has pledged to stop supporting primary challenges inside the party. Why is that happening? What does that tell us about what happens to reform efforts inside the Democratic tent?
The problem with “sticking with them” is they have made some major leadership mistakes that have limited how much their flag-planting is sustainable. A major problem, as I see it, is that these elected officials acting in a certain way (which they aren’t doing now) is actually very important for what Meyer/French want to be able to do with DSA. So I am starting to think we need to discuss new ways to get them to behave differently. That is a very difficult question. But I do think there are more answers than I have seen elaborated yet.
I don't know any political leaders who haven't made mistakes. Bernie and the Squad make fewer, and are on the right side of history.
Lol it isn’t a moral judgement but a political one.
I agree.