Cindy Sheehan at SP-USA conference: Rising figure?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/09/socialists-hold-organizing-conference/


The Socialist Party USA had an excellent National Organizing Conference (NOC) this year in Madison, Wisconsin. The three-day event featured music, speakers and workshops that offered practical skills to enhance our activism. A little more than 50 people turned up for the event from all over the country. The relatively new South Central Wisconsin local hosted the event and these comrades performed marvelously.

Saturday’s plenary was noteworthy. Radical historian Paul Buhle gave the first speech in which he emphasized the need for radical political movements to take counterculture seriously. He lamented the early worker’s movements cleaving off of the radical bohemian elements in favor of a more workerist approach. Similarly, he tracked the development of the Beat culture as an important part of the general radicalization of the 60s.

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was the next speaker. The many comrades who donated funds to pay for her plane ticket and housing made Cindy’s speech possible. She discussed the “so-called” anti-war movement and spoke out strongly against the way in which the movement was funneled into the Obama campaign and killed. Cindy spoke passionately about re-imagining the anti-war movement as an anti-capitalist movement that understood the links between economic exploitation and war. She declared herself a revolutionary socialist from the podium. In addition, she announced her intention to run for president in order to challenge the war candidates in 2012. Quite an exciting development for us!

Finally, Dan LaBotz, fresh off his Socialist Party campaigning in Ohio gave a fiery speech about the disappeared. Dan mentioned our disappearing jobs, our disappearing social movements and our disappearing independence from the Democrat party. Instead of capitulation or depression, he shouted “Nunca mas!” (Never again!) while offering inspirational stories about his time on the campaign trail in Ohio. In particular, Dan mentioned a noteworthy conversation with a Pakistani woman who thanked him for speaking out against the US war being carried out against people in her country.

After the failure of Brian Moore, will populist Cindy Sheehan become indeed America's O... well, the one person to popularize the American left and at the same time openly declare that "We want to overthrow capitalism"?

[The Vegan Marxist]

It's kind of unclear right now, but either way, best of luck to Cindy!

[x371322]

Sounds like good news!

[anticap]

After the failure of Brian Moore, will Cindy Sheehan become indeed the one person to popularize the American left

No.

Moore didn't "fail"; he had no hope of success: the American Left constituted less than 0.04% of voters in the last presidential election.

I can see Sheehan pulling in McKinney-like numbers (0.12%) -- but not on an openly socialist ticket; and McKinney's showing hasn't exactly set the Green Party on fire.

At best, Sheehan might pull a Nader.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The previous issue of Justice, the newspaper of Socialist Alternative featured an interview with Cindy Sheehan on the topic of capitalism, Obama, and the need for a working class party. http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1407


Justice: We understand you called for public ownership of the banks in your 2008 election campaign. What kind of response did you get from ordinary people when you raised this idea? Do you support public ownership of other industries as well?

Cindy Sheehan: I believe that the wealth and resources of a region/nation belong to the people. I think industry should be in the democratic control of the workers.

And I think ordinary people have a gut feeling that this is the only fair way to operate. Many people have lost their jobs, homes, and any kind of security that they had, and they see that the rich are getting richer, while the poor get poorer. I think the greatest advantage of having a high-profile Socialist presidential campaign is that we can educate people that they aren’t alone and that they are not lazy or the problem. The problem is simply Capitalism—not “crony Capitalism” or “predatory Capitalism,” because Capitalism is inherently crony and predatory. The only goal is profit at any and all costs. It is exciting to have a high-ish profile socialist candidate already announcing their candidacy for 2012.

[chegitz guevara]

Comrade Sheehan, and I say that because she is now openly socialist, called for a "revolutionary socialist government" (those exact words) in the United States at our National Organizing Committee. She said she is considering a Presidential campaign. When one comrade asked her if she would consider running on our ticket, she was non-committal. Most likely, she would try and run a unity socialist campaign.

On Facebook, she has been quoting Marx and Trotsky. There is an unfortunate tendency towards sectarianism (on both the right and the left) in our organization that would rather see us running our own candidate than cooperate with other groups in running a unity socialist candidate. The fucking point is to spread the socialist message, whether or not our organizations, individually, grow.

If she wants the SPUSA endorsement, however, she'll have to ask for it in Fall 2011, because that's when we'll have our convention and decide on a candidate.

[chegitz guevara]

No.

Moore didn't "fail"; he had no hope of success: the American Left constituted less than 0.04% of voters in the last presidential election.

I can see Sheehan pulling in McKinney-like numbers (0.12%) -- but not on an openly socialist ticket; and McKinney's showing hasn't exactly set the Green Party on fire.

At best, Sheehan might pull a Nader.

Keep in mind that 2008 was an historic election. The left polled ten percent of their usual numbers. Obama did his job well.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade Sheehan, and I say that because she is now openly socialist, called for a "revolutionary socialist government" (those exact words)

Like with "overthrow," comrade "revolutionary" can mean several things. Are you sure you're not rushing in your judgement of whom I see as America's O... well, you know? She might have a populist-constitutional "revolution" in mind (mass populist support for constitutional change in sufficient states, but not among the legislators).

Like her European counterpart ( :D ), she left no qualifiers before "capitalism" like "financial capitalism," "today's capitalism," "casino capitalism," "neoliberal capitalism," etc.

Either way, I do think her left turn is a step forward.

[anticap]

The left polled ten percent of their usual numbers.

No, 2004 was about the same. I doubt if the entire socialist voting bloc has broke 0.1% since Debs.

[chegitz guevara]

No, 2004 was about the same.

No, you're wrong.

[anticap]

No, you're wrong.

Show me where (http://uselectionatlas.org/).

[NoOneIsIllegal]

No, 2004 was about the same. I doubt if the entire socialist voting bloc has broke 0.1% since Debs.
1932 - Norman Thomas 2.2% :rolleyes: Although I don't think Thomas even counts as a socialist...

Sheehan sounds interesting, but we'll just have to see how this goes. I'm hesitant about any socialist presidential candidate, especially as of lately.

[chegitz guevara]

Whoops, I'm wrong.

All of the socialist candidates went down, but there were three instead of two in 2008, and the total was actually more.

[anticap]

1932 - Norman Thomas 2.2% :rolleyes: Although I don't think Thomas even counts as a socialist...

Sheehan sounds interesting, but we'll just have to see how this goes. I'm hesitant about any socialist presidential candidate, especially as of lately.

Heh, w00t! I didn't bother checking. But yeah, the point stands. Socialist voters are hardly anything to get excited about. I'm glad to see a high-profile figure talking the talk, but it isn't going to spark a revolution, or even convince a significant number of people to vote socialist. Debs was the high-water mark, at a time when socialism enjoyed its greatest level of acceptability in the US.


Whoops, I'm wrong.

All of the socialist candidates went down, but there were three instead of two in 2008, and the total was actually more.

I was giving you Peace & Freedom for '04. :p

[chegitz guevara]

The point isn't that we think it' gonna spark a revolution or get lots of people to vote socialist, The point is to spread the socialist message.

[anticap]

The point isn't that we think it' gonna spark a revolution or get lots of people to vote socialist, The point is to spread the socialist message.

And my point is that it hasn't, and that it won't. If running socialist candidates spread the message, then it would manifest in the next election. That doesn't happen. Left-leaning US-Americans don't vote for socialists, they vote for Democrats, and then they piss and moan about what they get. Or, at best, they vote for Greens and independents like Nader, who, even with their relatively stupendous numbers, achieve nothing.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

And my point is that it hasn't, and that it won't. If running socialist candidates spread the message, then it would manifest in the next election. That doesn't happen. Left-leaning US-Americans don't vote for socialists, they vote for Democrats, and then they piss and moan about what they get. Or, at best, they vote for Greens and independents like Nader, who, even with their relatively stupendous numbers, achieve nothing.

Have you considered that it doesn't manifest in the next election because the same person isn't running and thus doesn't attract the same independents that voted last time, but that this person's identification with socialism helps build the movement by inspiring more people to take a look at the radical left, and become activists?

Because you can still retain those activists, in spite of this person's absense the next time around, and despite the resulting inability of the party to do as well at the polls four years later (with another candidate).

[anticap]

Have you considered that it doesn't manifest in the next election because the same person isn't running and thus doesn't attract the same independents that voted last time, but that this person's identification with socialism helps build the movement by inspiring more people to take a look at the radical left, and become activists?

Because you can still retain those activists, in spite of this person's absense the next time around, and despite the resulting inability of the party to do as well at the polls four years later (with another candidate).

I've considered it, but I haven't seen it, at least not in any quantifiable way.

How are you quantifying it?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I've considered it, but I haven't seen it, at least not in any quantifiable way.

How are you quantifying it?

I'm not quantifying it. It's a hypothesis based on the idea that Cindy Sheehan would get more attention and attract more support as an SP-USA candidate than someone like Brian Moore did. (Not that I expect that the corporate media will reasonably cover her socialist campaign in the event.) I would expect at least some of the people attracted to the campaign to become socialists -- and then stick around afterward.

[anticap]

I'm not quantifying it. It's a hypothesis based on the idea that Cindy Sheehan would get more attention and attract more support as an SP-USA candidate than someone like Brian Moore did. (Not that I expect that the corporate media will reasonably cover her socialist campaign in the event.) I would expect at least some of the people attracted to the campaign to become socialists -- and then stick around afterward.

I don't disagree with any of that. What I've disagreed with is that Sheehan will "popularize the American left." If I'm proved wrong then I'll cheerfully eat my words. I just don't want people to get so invested that they're devastated when I'm proved right.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I don't disagree with any of that. What I've disagreed with is that Sheehan will "popularize the American left." If I'm proved wrong then I'll cheerfully eat my words. I just don't want people to get so invested that they're devastated when I'm proved right.

I don't think anybody expects Cindy Sheehan to greatly popularize the American left, or entertains that idea. But "popularizing the American left" can mean a very modest gain on the electoral pie chart, which would still be quite beneficial to the tiny organizations we have today.

I reckon that that is what Die Neue Zeit really had in mind when he began this thread.

I suspect that that is the kind of "popularization" that's going to happen, unless Cindy Sheehan's remaining supporters are virtually all socialists at this point anyway. The mainstream liberals and their corporate media jumped ship a long time ago, but Cindy's campaign may well pull in a bunch more votes and activists for us in spite of that: if so, a Cindy candidacy would be worthwhile.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think anybody expects Cindy Sheehan to greatly popularize the American left, or entertains that idea. But "popularizing the American left" can mean a very modest gain on the electoral pie chart, which would still be quite beneficial to the tiny organizations we have today.

I reckon that that is what Die Neue Zeit really had in mind when he began this thread.

Actually, I meant much, much more than that.

Popularizing means boosting something called the "Populist Left" against the so-called "Elitist Left" in various grassroots discussions. It means boosting the ranks of activists aligned with the former and not the latter, and it also means forcing grassroots reformists to at least adopt more radical rhetoric, such as my end quote in the OP as stated by one such person having to adopt more radical rhetoric.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I fail to see how presidential politics is anything but a bankrupt tactic from a left-wing standpoint.

[Zeus the Moose]

Keep in mind that 2008 was an historic election. The left polled ten percent of their usual numbers. Obama did his job well.

Looking at the past five presidential elections, the aggregate totals for socialist presidential candidates was highest in 1996 at about 40,000* votes split among four different parties (WWP, SWP, SP-USA, and SEP.) The lowest was actually in 2000 at less than 20,000 split among three different parties (SWP, SP-USA, and WWP). Completing the group, 1992 was about 30,000 split between four different parties (SWP, SP-USA, SEP, and WWP), 2004 was around 25,000 split between four different parties (SP-USA, SWP, SEP, and WWP), and 2008 was around 20,000 split between three different parties (SWP, PSL, and SP-USA).

*Not including the Peace and Freedom Party numbers in any of these calculations.

---

I believe I've mentioned this about a potential Cindy Sheehan campaign in 2012, but I'm cautiously optimistic about its prospects, and interesting in how this might encourage the formation of relationships between different socialist organisations. However, I am somewhat concerned that what might start out as a socialist-led effort will attract the attention of the Green Party, which has the potential to swamp out socialist politics for the alluring promise of additional ballot lines.

Also, presenting a "united socialist" presidential ticket shouldn't take up all of our resources (this goes more generally than just within the SP-USA); rather, the presidential ticket should be seen as a means to connect with running local candidates for US Congress, state legislatures, etc.

[KurtFF8]

And my point is that it hasn't, and that it won't. If running socialist candidates spread the message, then it would manifest in the next election. That doesn't happen. Left-leaning US-Americans don't vote for socialists, they vote for Democrats, and then they piss and moan about what they get. Or, at best, they vote for Greens and independents like Nader, who, even with their relatively stupendous numbers, achieve nothing.

From what I understand, the PSL has grown quite a bit directly from their interactions through their 2008 presidential campaign. They were able to spread their message and get people interested in socialist politics to the level of joining their party.

[Adi Shankara]

Cindy Sheehan is a one trick Pony who refuses to abandon certain beliefs that can be considered reactionary, she has no real plans or ideas for the Economy, and is basically a text book liberal with a text book liberal agenda.

[Red Commissar]

Cindy Sheehan is a one trick Pony who refuses to abandon certain beliefs that can be considered reactionary, she has no real plans or ideas for the Economy, and is basically a text book liberal with a text book liberal agenda.

How so? It might help to elaborate on those points than just spewing things like that.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't think you've been paying attention to her lately. She quotes from Marx and Trotsky on Facebook frequently. She refers to the ruling class as the robber class. Right now, she's on a leftward trajectory. I think we should encourage this.

[KC]

Although she is now openly socialist, and does quote Marx/Trotsky frequently, she's still pretty damned loony.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Although she is now openly socialist, and does quote Marx/Trotsky frequently, she's still pretty damned loony.

I don't know much about her, so excuse my ignorance on her, but why exactly is she "loony"?

[zimmerwald1915]

I don't think you've been paying attention to her lately. She quotes from Marx and Trotsky on Facebook frequently. She refers to the ruling class as the robber class.
None of which necessarily means anything.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know much about her, so excuse my ignorance on her, but why exactly is she "loony"?

KC doesn't get it. See, Hugo Haase and Jean Jaures, despite their pre-war reform socialism, were staunchly against participation in WWI, and paid with their very own lives for their aggressive pacifism of "peace without annexations or indemnifications" - a renegade's line in revolutionary periods, but a whole lot superior to "revolutionary defeatism" in every other case.

KC himself supports a political line that's quite loony outside of revolutionary periods, one that calls for soldiers to march toward their own capitals instead of toward the front or back toward their home bases. Cindy Sheehan is right to call for returning the troops home, for peace without annexations or indemnifications, and not parroting "revolutionary defeatism" especially at this point in time.

[Revy]

I've said this many times, 2008 was the worst election year for socialists.

In fact, socialist parties got a combined percentage of the vote that was the lowest since 1888 - 120 years before.

Cindy Sheehan's recent transition to socialism is something that has been in the making. She left the Democratic Party, only to fall into a social democratic third party politics - but now she may be bringing hope to a lethargic movement, if she is becoming more opposed to capitalism.

My only concern is that it sticks and she doesn't make any wild shifts in politics later. That wouldn't be good.

If Cindy Sheehan runs on a socialist ticket, it's likely many people will join the socialist cause. I don't think that is because we want famous people leading, but because she is a devoted activist of fighting the wars and other oppression.

[Crux]

Looking at the past five presidential elections, the aggregate totals for socialist presidential candidates was highest in 1996 at about 40,000* votes split among four different parties (WWP, SWP, SP-USA, and SEP.) The lowest was actually in 2000 at less than 20,000 split among three different parties (SWP, SP-USA, and WWP). Completing the group, 1992 was about 30,000 split between four different parties (SWP, SP-USA, SEP, and WWP), 2004 was around 25,000 split between four different parties (SP-USA, SWP, SEP, and WWP), and 2008 was around 20,000 split between three different parties (SWP, PSL, and SP-USA).

*Not including the Peace and Freedom Party numbers in any of these calculations.

---

I believe I've mentioned this about a potential Cindy Sheehan campaign in 2012, but I'm cautiously optimistic about its prospects, and interesting in how this might encourage the formation of relationships between different socialist organisations. However, I am somewhat concerned that what might start out as a socialist-led effort will attract the attention of the Green Party, which has the potential to swamp out socialist politics for the alluring promise of additional ballot lines.

Also, presenting a "united socialist" presidential ticket shouldn't take up all of our resources (this goes more generally than just within the SP-USA); rather, the presidential ticket should be seen as a means to connect with running local candidates for US Congress, state legislatures, etc.
Well, if there are Greens willing to commit to a socialist program it might pull them to the left rather than swamp out the socialism, if socialists, and it seems Sheehan can be counted among them as well, set the agenda I indeed think it will have that effect, well on some of the Green Parties anyway.
Anyway, a united socialist candidate would be awesome. If this happens I might even drop my very much in personal capacity support for a Biaffra-Rollins ticket in 2012.

[graymouser]

I don't know much about her, so excuse my ignorance on her, but why exactly is she "loony"?
Sheehan has moved toward some kind of quasi-Marxist analysis, but I recall in her talks and her e-book "Myth America" in the last couple years she has been soft on 9/11 conspiracy BS and has targeted the Federal Reserve as one of the things she is against. So there's definitely a bit of a link to loony conspiracy land there. She is also saying some good things - so it's not exactly a total loss - but there were moments in the talk I saw her give that made me a bit uncomfortable.

[Revy]

Sheehan has moved toward some kind of quasi-Marxist analysis, but I recall in her talks and her e-book "Myth America" in the last couple years she has been soft on 9/11 conspiracy BS and has targeted the Federal Reserve as one of the things she is against. So there's definitely a bit of a link to loony conspiracy land there. She is also saying some good things - so it's not exactly a total loss - but there were moments in the talk I saw her give that made me a bit uncomfortable.

Believing 9/11 was a US gov't conspiracy does not make one a loony. In Cindy Sheehan's case, at worst, she is/was misinformed or just doesn't have any faith in the American government's morality. Do you? I don't think most leftists who endorse 9/11 conspiracy theories do so because they're raving lunatics. Let's stop thinking like the right-wing.

The Federal Reserve is a way in which banks exert influence on the American economic policy. Although the right attacks it as "socialist", they attack lots of things as such. I don't know how it is "loony conspiracy" to attack such an organization.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Organiztion_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System.jpg

[zimmerwald1915]

Sheehan has moved toward some kind of quasi-Marxist analysis, but I recall in her talks and her e-book "Myth America" in the last couple years she has been soft on 9/11 conspiracy BS and has targeted the Federal Reserve as one of the things she is against.
I don't think that being against the Federal Reserve is a marker of looniness. After all, are we not all here against the Federal Reserve, seeing as it is both a means of inflicting capital's attacks on working people and part of the capitalist state?

[RED DAVE]

I don't think that being against the Federal Reserve is a marker of looniness. After all, are we not all here against the Federal Reserve, seeing as it is both a means of inflicting capital's attacks on working people and part of the capitalist state?I agree that it's not necessarily "a marker of looniness."

However, in my experience, one of such markers is a fixation on the banking system, money supply, etc. It's a throwback to earlier forms of radicalism, i.e. the Populists, and you'll find stuff like this scattered around among the Tea Baggers and their ilk.

I hold out some hope for Sheehan being the first genuinely popular figure that Left has had in decades. The interaction between personalities and politics, notwithstanding, in these callow times, this is something worth considering. Remember how the liberals pissed blood about Nader, a far more equivocal figure, in 2004 after their gang rape in 2000.

Another popular, somewhat neglected figure is Michael Moore.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

The interaction between personalities and politics, notwithstanding, in these callow times, this is something worth considering. Remember how the liberals pissed blood about Nader, a far more equivocal figure, in 2004 after their gang rape in 2000.

Another popular, somewhat neglected figure is Michael Moore.

Some people object to his being really obese. The interaction you refer to was the point of my original post, citing certain European precedents going back to last year.

Speaking of personalities, if a popular figure with any sort of "country" accent were to make a sharp left turn and get active, the left could get a boost among blue-collar workers living in the places like Deep South.

[Salyut]

Another popular, somewhat neglected figure is Michael Moore.

RED DAVE

I was under the impression that he rejected socialism and had called for some kind of magical new economic order.

Quoth the Guardian interview:


But what does it mean, to replace capitalism with democracy? He sighs and tries to explain. In the old Soviet bloc, he says, communism was the political system and socialism the economic. But with capitalism, he complains, you get political and economic rolled in to one. Big business buys votes in Congress. Lobbyists write laws. The result is that the US political system is awash in capitalist money that has stripped the system of much of its democratic accountability.

"What I'm asking for is a new economic order," he says. "I don't know how to construct that. I'm not an economist. All I ask is that it have two organising principles. Number one, that the economy is run democratically. In other words, the people have a say in how its run, not just the 1%. And number two, that it has an ethical and moral core to it. That nothing is done without considering the ethical nature, no business decision is made without first asking the question, is this for the common good?"

Correct me if I'm wrong but there isn't anything here that separates him from the pack of social democrats that want a big green smiley face stamped on capitalism.

[anticap]

Speaking of personalities, if a popular figure with any sort of "country" accent were to make a sharp left turn and get active, the left could get a boost among blue-collar workers living in the places like Deep South.

I've heard that there's a talk-radio host who wears a cowboy hat and is some sort of progressive populist (about the best that can be hoped for in the US), but I've never heard his show and I don't know his name or what his positions are.

[Martin Blank]

I've heard that there's a talk-radio host who wears a cowboy hat and is some sort of progressive populist (about the best that can be hoped for in the US), but I've never heard his show and I don't know his name or what his positions are.

You must be thinking of Jim Hightower. He's written books and articles, and not only has his own radio show, but also records an occasional commentary that's carried as part of the radio program done by The Nation magazine (IIRC).

[anticap]

You must be thinking of Jim Hightower.

According to Wikipedia, that must be him, yeah.

He's no radical, but it'd still be great if he could pull in Limbaugh-like numbers. For some reason, left-liberal/progressive radio always fails to compete. I wake up to NPR on my alarm clock and even they suffer from systemic right-wing bias; but it's either that or FOX.