I think your conception of the divisions within the left is too conditioned by the DSA Jacobin perspective. Zizek: “the ideological divide consists in how the ideological divide is itself conceived of.” I don’t think that the actual hard left is relevant at all: in the US context, the DSA IS the hard left for all intents and purposes. I would divide the left into four groups:
1. The neoliberal centrists (the kind who thought bringing Cheney on board was a good idea): they invoke social issues but tread very lightly on class and economics if at all
2. The “progressive” centrists: they invoke class and economics (very carefully to avoid upsetting capital)
3. The social democrats - this includes DSA and Jacobins but I think represents a wider swath of the electorate who is sympathetic to class issues but may not identify specifically with how those groups articulate them
4. The identitarians: care more about social issues than class issues, or place them on even ground.
Basically 1 and 2 are establishment forces and 3 and 4 are popular forces. 1 tries to bring 4 on board with Democrats and 2 tries to bring 3 on board. Basically both popular fronts are consistently outmaneuvered because class and identity are pitted against each other in a compromise that leaves no one happy, including the centrists.
I think what needs to happen is that 3 and 4 need to band together and come to the negotiating table with 1 and 2. It is basically like a union versus boss situation. They have to be unified in order to extract any meaningful concessions from the managerial elements of the left. They don’t know it but the center left would benefit from this too by generating more mass appeal. It also means too though that the more extreme elements of 3 and 4 may have to be played down a bit. The centrist critics have a few valid points about the left’s overemphasis on open borders and defunding the police, for example.
Effectively Democratic failure can be attributed to a poor compromise between these groups. The worst of all worlds instead of what is best in them.
Most in the hard left support and utilize democratic structures. Admittedly, as an anarchist, I have zero faith in democratic centralism being all that democratic and haven’t seen it play out in practice the way it does in theory.
That said, democratic norms do not belong exclusively to any left tendency and the DSA does need some structural reforms in order to be democratic. Its NPC is too similar to the once indirect election of US Senators, for example.
Hopefully the DSA finds a way to heal a little. Right now it’s a war zone (at least online - less so in person) due to the influence of the Democratic Party.
It is obviously confusing for a movement veteran too, otherwise he would have done better job characterizing it.
The author really misunderstands why the "hard-left" is often campist and supports anti-American/Western forces who are often anti-democratic. These various organizations and tendencies all understand the violent and global nature of capitalism, and that the capitalist-class will not be expropriated gently. This is a sober-minded conclusion and anyone interested in escaping capitalism MUST take this reality seriously. The US killed tens of millions in the third world to win the Cold War and there is no reason to think it will not do so again.
The right-wing of the left believes that the compromises they need to make are with the domestic centrists in order to build the basis for socialism in the USA. We can run as dems and work with dems, so long as we are able to deliver "socialist reforms" that build consciousness. The left-wing of the left believes that that in order to dismantle global capitalism, alliances on the global stage must be made in order to weaken the power of Western Imperialism. Only with the freedom of movement given by a weakened imperial order, will socialism be able to develop and prosper anywhere on earth. Cuba has been besieged for over half a century, I'm willing to bet it would be more democratic if it were able to trade with the rest of the world. Cuba is more democratic than anti-commmunist propaganda depicts, but certainly not the democratic social republic that Marx envisioned would be the form of socialism.
The problem with many on the "hard-left" is the tendency to jump to immediate militancy and not to grapple with the fact that the reason the left is weak is because the working class is not consciously organized, not because its leaders have the wrong ideas.
How do you think we should relate to groups on the hard left presently? Is there a way to build healthy relationships in coalition with them while maintaining our own orientation towards a democratic road to socialism? Is there even a strategic impetus to do so, or should we focus entirely on building the left flank of unions without worrying what groups like PYM say about DSA online?
I think your conception of the divisions within the left is too conditioned by the DSA Jacobin perspective. Zizek: “the ideological divide consists in how the ideological divide is itself conceived of.” I don’t think that the actual hard left is relevant at all: in the US context, the DSA IS the hard left for all intents and purposes. I would divide the left into four groups:
1. The neoliberal centrists (the kind who thought bringing Cheney on board was a good idea): they invoke social issues but tread very lightly on class and economics if at all
2. The “progressive” centrists: they invoke class and economics (very carefully to avoid upsetting capital)
3. The social democrats - this includes DSA and Jacobins but I think represents a wider swath of the electorate who is sympathetic to class issues but may not identify specifically with how those groups articulate them
4. The identitarians: care more about social issues than class issues, or place them on even ground.
Basically 1 and 2 are establishment forces and 3 and 4 are popular forces. 1 tries to bring 4 on board with Democrats and 2 tries to bring 3 on board. Basically both popular fronts are consistently outmaneuvered because class and identity are pitted against each other in a compromise that leaves no one happy, including the centrists.
I think what needs to happen is that 3 and 4 need to band together and come to the negotiating table with 1 and 2. It is basically like a union versus boss situation. They have to be unified in order to extract any meaningful concessions from the managerial elements of the left. They don’t know it but the center left would benefit from this too by generating more mass appeal. It also means too though that the more extreme elements of 3 and 4 may have to be played down a bit. The centrist critics have a few valid points about the left’s overemphasis on open borders and defunding the police, for example.
Effectively Democratic failure can be attributed to a poor compromise between these groups. The worst of all worlds instead of what is best in them.
Most in the hard left support and utilize democratic structures. Admittedly, as an anarchist, I have zero faith in democratic centralism being all that democratic and haven’t seen it play out in practice the way it does in theory.
That said, democratic norms do not belong exclusively to any left tendency and the DSA does need some structural reforms in order to be democratic. Its NPC is too similar to the once indirect election of US Senators, for example.
Hopefully the DSA finds a way to heal a little. Right now it’s a war zone (at least online - less so in person) due to the influence of the Democratic Party.
Even the "hard left" splits into anarchist and marxist camps as well. And camps within those camps. Confusing to navigate for any newbie.
It is obviously confusing for a movement veteran too, otherwise he would have done better job characterizing it.
The author really misunderstands why the "hard-left" is often campist and supports anti-American/Western forces who are often anti-democratic. These various organizations and tendencies all understand the violent and global nature of capitalism, and that the capitalist-class will not be expropriated gently. This is a sober-minded conclusion and anyone interested in escaping capitalism MUST take this reality seriously. The US killed tens of millions in the third world to win the Cold War and there is no reason to think it will not do so again.
The right-wing of the left believes that the compromises they need to make are with the domestic centrists in order to build the basis for socialism in the USA. We can run as dems and work with dems, so long as we are able to deliver "socialist reforms" that build consciousness. The left-wing of the left believes that that in order to dismantle global capitalism, alliances on the global stage must be made in order to weaken the power of Western Imperialism. Only with the freedom of movement given by a weakened imperial order, will socialism be able to develop and prosper anywhere on earth. Cuba has been besieged for over half a century, I'm willing to bet it would be more democratic if it were able to trade with the rest of the world. Cuba is more democratic than anti-commmunist propaganda depicts, but certainly not the democratic social republic that Marx envisioned would be the form of socialism.
The problem with many on the "hard-left" is the tendency to jump to immediate militancy and not to grapple with the fact that the reason the left is weak is because the working class is not consciously organized, not because its leaders have the wrong ideas.
How do you think we should relate to groups on the hard left presently? Is there a way to build healthy relationships in coalition with them while maintaining our own orientation towards a democratic road to socialism? Is there even a strategic impetus to do so, or should we focus entirely on building the left flank of unions without worrying what groups like PYM say about DSA online?