Cynthis McKinney launches DIGNITY campaign

[Lolshevik]

http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1113



There is a black President in the White House. Still, racism is alive and well in the courts, on the streets, and in the practices of big companies. A Princeton University study of 1,500 New York City employers showed that black applicants without criminal records are no more likely to get a job than white applicants just out of prison. You can't eat "hope." With unemployment amongst African Americans above double the already-staggering national average, new organizations of struggle are needed.

In this context, Cynthia McKinney, former Congresswoman (D-GA) and 2008 Green Party presidential candidate (and one of 21 people detained by the Israeli military in late June for attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza), spoke at St. Mary’s Church in Harlem on Sunday, May 31 to announce the formation of a new group called DIGNITY.



The Dream Hasn't Been Realized

The election of President Obama shows that racist attitudes amongst many ordinary Americans have died down, but American capitalism’s inherent racism still thrives.

Schools in this country are today more segregated than they were at the time of Dr. King’s death. One in ten young black men are in prison, most for minor offenses.

Regarded as second-class citizens, African American residents of every major city face police brutality, with outright murder by police becoming a more common occurrence. The AIDS epidemic, an outgrowth of racism, sexism, and a sick for-profit health system, disproportionately affects black women.



The policies that have led to this situation were accelerated under the Bush administration, but the Democrats cannot be let off the hook. From welfare reform under Bill Clinton, to local budget cuts, to refusing to stand up to the Bush agenda, the Democrats are complicit in the attacks on African Americans and working people in general. In her May 31 speech, McKinney said, “Our President has breathed new life into the Democratic Party. But the fact is, our precious breath that gives that party life is killing us.”


Disillusioned Black Activists

At the May 31 forum launching DIGNITY, McKinney was joined by many well-seasoned activists in the African American community. McKinney also drew inspiration from previous organizations and individuals who stood up to racism, like the Black Panther Party and Malcolm X. This event reflects a frustration of a section of activists with President Obama.



She said, “We are tired of watching politicians acknowledge our pain, win office, and then go about their business adding more to the existing pain.” While President Obama still enjoys high approval ratings amongst African Americans, a section of radicals are becoming more upset, organized, and oppositional.



A Way Forward

Socialist Alternative hopes DIGNITY can build actions that reach out to ordinary working-class and young African Americans while linking up with other forces. McKinney made a hint in this direction by sharing our disappointment that antiwar and anti-corporate campaigner Cindy Sheehan has stepped back from politics. McKinney said, “I was saddened to read a message from Cindy Sheehan saying that she won’t run against (California Democratic Speaker Nancy) Pelosi next election. That’s a big blow to us and I hope she will reconsider.”



McKinney's next steps for DIGNITY were announced: a fund-raising drive, a TV show, a website, and a series of radio appearances. While these steps can be helpful, a campaign and a series of demonstrations to demand free, quality healthcare or an initiative against racism and police brutality could galvanize new, younger activists.



No set of demands or political program for DIGNITY have been announced yet. While this is being worked out, the words of past radicals should be kept in mind. Fredrick Douglass said “if there is no struggle, there is no progress,” and Malcolm X said “you can't have capitalism without racism.” A program of class struggle and a plan of action are both needed in this time of economic desperation and dire social crisis.
What do my fellow revlefters make of this? IMO, I support all moves by the black community to move away from support of the Democratic Party, and I think socialists should contribute to this campaign with a class-strugglist perspective.

[Pogue]

McKinney's next steps for DIGNITY were announced: a fund-raising drive, a TV show, a website, and a series of radio appearances. While these steps can be helpful, a campaign and a series of demonstrations to demand free, quality healthcare or an initiative against racism and police brutality could galvanize new, younger activists.

Working class people have no political power and such a demonstration to demand such things is doomed to be unsuccesful. Only through the exercising of our economic power would bring about these much needed demands. However I see them as part of the wider need to do away with the obvious errors in the capitalist system so to me this looks like another well meaning campaign with misdirected tactics.

[Lolshevik]

Misdirected tactics, I agree. But I think it's the responsibility of socialists to enter and participate in any social movement that can defend and make gains in the living standards of working class people.

At any rate, from what little I know about Cynthia McKinney and the DIGNITY campaign, this might actually have some potential.

[Pogue]

Misdirected tactics, I agree. But I think it's the responsibility of socialists to enter and participate in any social movement that can defend and make gains in the living standards of working class people.

At any rate, from what little I know about Cynthia McKinney and the DIGNITY campaign, this might actually have some potential.'

I think the age of us flogging this desperate line of 'intervntion' is over. Its been proven wrong on so many fronts in every group that has done it, from the entryists of Militant through to united fronters of the SWP and respect. If we're to be honest with the working class we need to organise as a class independently of all existing structures, and make our own structures.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

What happened to Cynthia McKinney being kidnapped by the IDF?

[Kassad]

I can't comprehend for the life of me how someone like Cynthia McKinney can talk about capitalism's inherent racism and contradictions, but still support and rally to the banner of a capitalist party. Cynthia McKinney is great. She falls on the correct side of most social issues and she's definitely much more radical than most others in the capitalist political establishment, but if you aren't calling for revolution, regardless of what you promote, it's still reformism. What's even more troubling is how socialist organizations like Socialist Alternative can rally in support of Ralph Nader, a xenophobic capitalist, and Workers World Party can endorse Cynthia McKinney, who is also a capitalist. We see socialist groups falling in line with reformist lines consistently and it's startling to see how a lot of people have forsaken the line of revolutionary thought and instead promoted simple reformism.

[Lolshevik]

I can't comprehend for the life of me how someone like Cynthia McKinney can talk about capitalism's inherent racism and contradictions, but still support and rally to the banner of a capitalist party. Cynthia McKinney is great. She falls on the correct side of most social issues and she's definitely much more radical than most others in the capitalist political establishment, but if you aren't calling for revolution, regardless of what you promote, it's still reformism. What's even more troubling is how socialist organizations like Socialist Alternative can rally in support of Ralph Nader, a xenophobic capitalist, and Workers World Party can endorse Cynthia McKinney, who is also a capitalist. We see socialist groups falling in line with reformist lines consistently and it's startling to see how a lot of people have forsaken the line of revolutionary thought and instead promoted simple reformism.

Kassad, your criticism is not without merit. And while I agree that Cynthia McKinney isn't exactly a Bolshevik, at a glance the DIGNITY campaign seems to me like it might actually reflect some political development on her part. But Cynthia's, or Ralph Nader's, degree of radicalization is not the point here. We all agree that they are not communists. Do you really think it's wise for communists to isolate themselves from the masses' discontent against the existing establishment - even when these fledgling movements are lead by reformist or bourgeois elements? I would argue that it's all the more important for communists to participate, to win rank-and-file activists away from the dead-end of reformism and to socialist ideas.

The Ralph Nader issue is important too, but I don't want this thread to veer off topic. But if you want to start another thread or discuss the issue over PM, I'm game.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think non-US comrades should consider the political landscape in the US - the American working class has not the same experiences with social-democratic parties or Labor parties like in the UK or Italy or so on.

The lack of alternative independent political expressions has helped to limit consciousness to the extent that most people are against the war, most people are against the death penalty, most people are for Universal healthcare and yet they vote for Democrats who declare these things are off the table (or at best that we have to wait until "the time is right"). Breaking consciousness (and potentially Labor unions and activist groups) away from the confines of the Democrats - even if it is limited as certainly the Greens are and this new formation will be - will be a step forward for the Left and help create space to build a radical left within that borad left.

A capitalist reform party will not bring a revolution but neither will a capitalist trade-union, but workers will learn from the experience (gain confidence from wins and learn lessons from losses due to limitations). Radicals should not abstain from this process, but be with workers on the picket line and in building a anti-racist party and explain the revolutionary tactics that are necissary to win and point out the inherent shortcomings of trade-unions or a reform party in really being able to take on capitalism and building a better world.

Best of luck to comrades in Socialist Alternative I look forward to finding out more and seeing how this develops.

[Kassad]

Kassad, your criticism is not without merit. And while I agree that Cynthia McKinney isn't exactly a Bolshevik, at a glance the DIGNITY campaign seems to me like it might actually reflect some political development on her part. But Cynthia's, or Ralph Nader's, degree of radicalization is not the point here. We all agree that they are not communists. Do you really think it's wise for communists to isolate themselves from the masses' discontent against the existing establishment - even when these fledgling movements are lead by reformist or bourgeois elements? I would argue that it's all the more important for communists to participate, to win rank-and-file activists away from the dead-end of reformism and to socialist ideas.

The Ralph Nader issue is important too, but I don't want this thread to veer off topic. But if you want to start another thread or discuss the issue over PM, I'm game.

This is incredibly idealistic and opportunistic, at best. I'm not asking for communists to 'isolate' themselves from other less-radical people. I've attended a multitude of different marches, demonstrations, protests and rallies in the last couple of years and I can tell you right now: it's not all Marxists and revolutionaries there. I had a guy talk to me about how much be misses John F. Kennedy. There were booths for the Democrats and Obama's campaign at a few rallies that were organized by much more radical groups. The Green Party is consistently at big rallies I've been at. However, you don't win over people by endorsing a capitalist candidate because it's not like you endorsed them and then infiltrated all of the Nader events and tried to sway people. When you endorse a capitalist candidate, you don't direct their energy at the bourgeois state as a whole. You direct their energy at the flaws in the bourgeois state and promote the notion that they can be changed without a revolutionary movement. They can't.

Looking back at Socialist Alternative's endorsement of Nader, they might as well have just posted stuff directly from his website. They posted huge articles in support of him and offered little sentences sparsely to acknowledge that he wasn't a revolutionary socialist. Okay... so why endorse him? "Hi, we're fighting for revolution, socialism and the destruction of capitalism... but we're endorsing a candidate who doesn't fight for any of these things." There's nothing wrong with struggling for reforms and a lot of things regarding Nader's campaign were progressive, but if there isn't at least an underlying revolutionary message, what's the point? The same issue is now present with Cynthia McKinney's new campaign. A capitalist is assaulting the contradictions of capitalism, but with no revolutionary solution.

The stuff I'm discussing is incredibly relevant because it shows how center left and even far-left elements will attempt to infiltrate revolutionary movements and sway them towards reformism. McKinney uses the word 'capitalism' a couple of times to act like she's promoting any revolutionary change to alter it, when in truth, she's not. If you put decorations on a Christmas tree, it's still a Christmas tree. There's really no justification or rationality behind endorsing capitalist candidates and unless McKinney's new campaign begins to promote a revolutionary line, it will be just as irrelevant as all other capitalist-oriented reform movements.

[Lolshevik]

This is incredibly idealistic and opportunistic, at best. I'm not asking for communists to 'isolate' themselves from other less-radical people. I've attended a multitude of different marches, demonstrations, protests and rallies in the last couple of years and I can tell you right now: it's not all Marxists and revolutionaries there. I had a guy talk to me about how much be misses John F. Kennedy. There were booths for the Democrats and Obama's campaign at a few rallies that were organized by much more radical groups. The Green Party is consistently at big rallies I've been at. However, you don't win over people by endorsing a capitalist candidate because it's not like you endorsed them and then infiltrated all of the Nader events and tried to sway people. When you endorse a capitalist candidate, you don't direct their energy at the bourgeois state as a whole. You direct their energy at the flaws in the bourgeois state and promote the notion that they can be changed without a revolutionary movement. They can't.

Looking back at Socialist Alternative's endorsement of Nader, they might as well have just posted stuff directly from his website. They posted huge articles in support of him and offered little sentences sparsely to acknowledge that he wasn't a revolutionary socialist. Okay... so why endorse him? "Hi, we're fighting for revolution, socialism and the destruction of capitalism... but we're endorsing a candidate who doesn't fight for any of these things." There's nothing wrong with struggling for reforms and a lot of things regarding Nader's campaign were progressive, but if there isn't at least an underlying revolutionary message, what's the point? The same issue is now present with Cynthia McKinney's new campaign. A capitalist is assaulting the contradictions of capitalism, but with no revolutionary solution.

The stuff I'm discussing is incredibly relevant because it shows how center left and even far-left elements will attempt to infiltrate revolutionary movements and sway them towards reformism. McKinney uses the word 'capitalism' a couple of times to act like she's promoting any revolutionary change to alter it, when in truth, she's not. If you put decorations on a Christmas tree, it's still a Christmas tree. There's really no justification or rationality behind endorsing capitalist candidates and unless McKinney's new campaign begins to promote a revolutionary line, it will be just as irrelevant as all other capitalist-oriented reform movements.


Kassad, you need to look into why Socialist Alternative chose to endorse Nader (and by no means was it a unanimous vote, I might add), as well as why we support the DIGNITY campaign. S.A. supported Nader's campaign for two reasons:

1) To recruit new cadres. We had good success with this in 2000, though this was less so in '04 and '08.
2) To use the anti-corporate atmosphere of the campaign to agitate for the formation of a new, class-independent mass workers party. This is also why we are for the DIGNITY campaign, despite its limitations. Incidentally, the struggle for a mass workers' party is the driving force between all of our actions & interventions in the United States, from our critical support of Nader's candidacy, our trade union work, etc.

Also, I don't fully understand your opposition to DIGNITY. It seems like you are against our position because DIGNITY involves reformist elements. You say that McKinney touches on the inherent flaws of capitalism but offers no revolutionary alternative. No argument there. But isn't it our job to offer that revolutionary alternative to the sizable audience that she will attract? The PSL does this too with the ANSWER Coalition, which is by no means made up in its entirety of revolutionary socialists.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There's nothing wrong with struggling for reforms and a lot of things regarding Nader's campaign were progressive, but if there isn't at least an underlying revolutionary message, what's the point? The same issue is now present with Cynthia McKinney's new campaign. A capitalist is assaulting the contradictions of capitalism, but with no revolutionary solution.

So there's no point in support a trade union struggle for better health care benifits? I mean shouldn't we demand universal health care and stop tricking workers into believing that their bosses can provide it for them? While we're at it why fight for universal healthcare at all - isn't it just deceiving workers into thinking that the system can meet their needs?

If we want to be serious and rebuild a radical left-wing and class and radical consciousness, then we need to evaluate reforms based on weather or not they are going to take us forward. If the radical left had a voice in US politics and our arguments were generally known by workers, then backing a reformist or many individual reforms could be a step back rather than move consciousness forward. If there was a black power movement and DIGNITY was not taking up and addressing the radical demands, then it would not be worth supporting. Having a high profile electoral reformist alternative to Obama in the current atmosphere is a step forward for the issues that will be raised and brought into the mainstream political discussion alone.

[Revy]

We vote to express our views - not to bring whoever to power. Even if socialists supported these left-leaning third parties and candidates they will not win. I'd rather just vote socialist. If there had been no socialist parties running candidates I would have voted for McKinney. That's how I feel about that - if there are no socialist candidates you should vote for whoever is best, but when you vote for a capitalist campaign over a socialist one, you're not doing socialism any good.

[Kassad]

Kassad, you need to look into why Socialist Alternative chose to endorse Nader (and by no means was it a unanimous vote, I might add), as well as why we support the DIGNITY campaign. S.A. supported Nader's campaign for two reasons:

1) To recruit new cadres. We had good success with this in 2000, though this was less so in '04 and '08.
2) To use the anti-corporate atmosphere of the campaign to agitate for the formation of a new, class-independent mass workers party. This is also why we are for the DIGNITY campaign, despite its limitations. Incidentally, the struggle for a mass workers' party is the driving force between all of our actions & interventions in the United States, from our critical support of Nader's candidacy, our trade union work, etc.

Also, I don't fully understand your opposition to DIGNITY. It seems like you are against our position because DIGNITY involves reformist elements. You say that McKinney touches on the inherent flaws of capitalism but offers no revolutionary alternative. No argument there. But isn't it our job to offer that revolutionary alternative to the sizable audience that she will attract? The PSL does this too with the ANSWER Coalition, which is by no means made up in its entirety of revolutionary socialists.

This kind of notion is basically anti-Leninist, since it forsakes the idea of creating a mass workers party to lead revolution in favor of settling for anti-corporate candidates which don't promote revolutionary socialism. I'm not necessarily opposing McKinney, Nader or DIGNITY because I disagree with their objectives, but because they are using their energy to promote center-leftist coalitions to reform capitalism, as opposed to destroying it. Instead of settling for petty reforms, we should be launching campaigns advocating revolutionary socialism as an alternative to capitalist exploitation. Instead of misleading the masses by endorsing candidates who say capitalism can be altered, we should lead the working class on the revolutionary path, not the reformist one.

Also, the PSL doesn't 'use' ANSWER to appeal to a broader audience. It is merely formulating a united coalition against racism and imperialism between an array of different groups. ANSWER isn't a socialist organization, so trying to compare what they promote to what Socialist Alternative promites is ridiculous.


So there's no point in support a trade union struggle for better health care benifits? I mean shouldn't we demand universal health care and stop tricking workers into believing that their bosses can provide it for them? While we're at it why fight for universal healthcare at all - isn't it just deceiving workers into thinking that the system can meet their needs?

Are you actually thinking before you type? Look at my party. We struggle for universal healthcare, as it is a basic necessity for human beings; to provide them with comprehensive service to maintain their health. However, while promoting the necessity of universal healthcare, my party also realizes that progressive reforms will always be half-hearted and attacked under capitalism, making many of them unattainable and unsustainable for the few that are achieved. The struggle for reforms is necessary, but if there is not an underlying revolutionary motive, it will likely lead to reforms that are progressive, but still controlled by the capitalist class.

There's a lot of organizations that are endorsing capitalist candidates. Workers World Party endorsed Cynthia McKinney, while the International Socialist Organization and Socialist Alternative endorsed Ralph Nader. As we're all very aware, the reforms that these two candidates were (for the most part) progressive. Many of the demands their campaigns raised were identical to that of the VotePSL campaigns in 2008, but there's a solid difference. The PSL campaigns had a revolutionary message, supported by a revolutionary program, promoting radical change. As Marxists, it is our goal to consistently strive for revolution. I can't see how endorsing capitalists is in any way furthering the cause of revolution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So there's no point in support a trade union struggle for better health care benifits? I mean shouldn't we demand universal health care and stop tricking workers into believing that their bosses can provide it for them? While we're at it why fight for universal healthcare at all - isn't it just deceiving workers into thinking that the system can meet their needs?

Are you actually thinking before you type?
This is your argument about reforms, not mine - I'm just applying to to all reformist efforts, not just electoral reformist candidates. Sorry I didn't use the "sarcasm" smilies so that you could recognize the logical extension of your argument.

If the US populist movement was around today would you not want to work with it, encourage it's more radical elements and argument why ultimately it is incomplete and that working class revolutionary politics were necessary? It was the failure and shortcomings of the Populist movement that eventually lead to the Socialist Party.


Look at my party. We struggle for universal healthcare, as it is a basic necessity for human beings; to provide them with comprehensive service to maintain their health. However, while promoting the necessity of universal healthcare, my party also realizes that progressive reforms will always be half-hearted and attacked under capitalism, making many of them unattainable and unsustainable for the few that are achieved. The struggle for reforms is necessary, but if there is not an underlying revolutionary motive, it will likely lead to reforms that are progressive, but still controlled by the capitalist class.Fine, I agree 100%. No one is claiming that radicals should hide their politics if supporting a left-wing electoral challenge to the Democrats. Radicals should welcome - CRITICALLY - a independent campaign that seeks to bring up issues of racism.

[Lolshevik]

This kind of notion is basically anti-Leninist, since it forsakes the idea of creating a mass workers party to lead revolution in favor of settling for anti-corporate candidates which don't promote revolutionary socialism. I'm not necessarily opposing McKinney, Nader or DIGNITY because I disagree with their objectives, but because they are using their energy to promote center-leftist coalitions to reform capitalism, as opposed to destroying it. Instead of settling for petty reforms, we should be launching campaigns advocating revolutionary socialism as an alternative to capitalist exploitation. Instead of misleading the masses by endorsing candidates who say capitalism can be altered, we should lead the working class on the revolutionary path, not the reformist one.

Comrade, how is it that we are forsaking the idea of a mass workers' party, when it is at the core of all our efforts? Socialist Alternative did not act as the left section of Nader's cheerleading squads, and we will not enter the DIGNITY campaign just to heap praise on McKinney's bold visions. We were in the Nader campaign, which is probably the largest left-populist "network" in the U.S. today, to point out the limitations of populism and to agitate for a workers' party.

We support DIGNITY in the same way that we support the trade unions, the LGBT movement, immigrant rights, and all other single-issue campaigns. Communists should vigorously participate in single-issue campaigns, always explaining to our fellow workers that these struggles are not "single" at all, that they are all linked together and linked to capitalist exploitation, and that the fights against racism, sexism, homophobia, the bosses on the shop floor, etc, must be combined within the framework of a workers' party to struggle for the abolition of capitalism.