"An Open Letter to the Left Establishment" [Archive]

Crux

10th December 2010, 06:39

An Open Letter to the Left Establishment (http://protestobama.org/)

☉ //
0 (http://protestobama.org/2010/12/09/4/#comments)

A Call for Active Support of Protest from Michael Moore (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/my-votes-for-obama-if-i-could-vote-by-michael-moore), Norman Solomon (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/obama-and-the-progressive_b_111949.html), Katrina van den Heuvel (http://www.thenation.com/article/obama-one-year), Michael Eric Dyson (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-nation/michael-eric-dyson-for-ba_b_71781.html), Barbara Ehrenreich (http://www.thenation.com/article/progressives-obama), Thomas Frank (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01232009/transcript2.html), Tom Hayden (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/progressives-for-obama_b_93399.html), Bill Fletcher Jr. (http://www.thenation.com/article/progressives-obama), Jesse Jackson Jr. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/politics/main2627147.shtml), and other high profile progressive supporters of the Obama electoral campaign.

With the Obama administration beginning its third year, it is by now painfully obvious that the predictions of even the most sober Obama supporters were overly optimistic. Rather than an ally, the administration has shown itself to be an implacable enemy of reform.
It has advanced repeated assaults on (http://www.counterpunch.org/nasser09152010.html) the New Deal safety net (including the previously sacrosanct Social Security trust fund), jettisoned any hope for substantive health care reform (http://socialistworker.org/2010/11/05/waiving-away-health-care-reform), attacked civil rights (http://www.truth-out.org/obamas-record-civil-liberties-garners-mixed-results56264) and environmental protections (http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair05212009.html), and expanded a massive bailout (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64868) further enriching an already bloated financial services and insurance industry. It has continued the occupation of Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/04/us-iraq-rebranding-occupation) and expanded the (http://www.thenation.com/blog/obamas-expanding-covert-wars)war in Afghanistan (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/3/noam) as well as our government’s covert and overt wars (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304965_pf.html) in South Asia and around the globe.
Along the way, the Obama administration, which referred to its left detractors as “f***ing retarded (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025030384695158.html?m od=WSJ_latestheadlines#printMode)” individuals that required “drug testing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/10/robert-gibbs-crazy-liberal-critics-obama),” stepped up the prosecution of federal war crime whistleblowers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/11/obama-whistleblowers_n_609787.html), and unleashed the FBI (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/us/politics/25search.html?_r=2) on those protesting the escalation of an insane war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29).
Obama’s recent announcement of a federal worker pay freeze is cynical, mean-spirited “deficit-reduction theater (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013590411_krugman04.html)”. Slashing Bush’s plutocratic tax cuts would have made a much more significant contribution to deficit reduction but all signs are that the “progressive” president will cave to Republican demands (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120807051.html) for the preservation of George W. Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy Few. Instead Obama’s tax cut plan (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tax-cut-deficit-20101209,0,937037.story) would raise taxes for the poorest (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20025087-503544.html) people in our country.

The election of Obama has not galvanized protest movements. To the contrary, it has depressed and undermined them (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/peace-out/), with the White House playing an active role in the discouragement and suppression of dissent (http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/07/amid-censorship-efforts-us-announces-plans-to-host-world-press-freedom-day/) – with disastrous consequences. The almost complete absence of protest from the left has emboldened the most right-wing elements inside and outside of the Obama administration to pursue and act on an ever more extreme agenda.

We are writing to you because you are well-known writers, bloggers and filmmakers with access to a range of old and new media, and you have in your power the capacity to help reignite the movement which brought millions onto the streets in February of 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest) but which has withered ever since. There are many thousands of progressives who follow your work closely and are waiting for a cue from you and others to act. We are asking you to commit yourself to actively supporting the protests of Obama administration policies which are now beginning to materialize.
In this connection we would like to mention a specific protest: the civil disobedience action being planned by Veterans for Peace (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/) involving Chris Hedges (http://www.truthdig.com/chris_hedges), Daniel Ellsberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg), Joel Kovel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Kovel), Medea Benjamin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_Benjamin), Ray McGovern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_McGovern), several armed service veterans and others to take place in front of the White House on Dec. 16th.

Should you commit yourselves to backing this action (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/) and others sure to materialize in weeks and months ahead, what would otherwise be regarded as an emotional outburst of the “fringe left” will have a better chance of being seen as expressing the will of a substantial majority not only of the left, but of the American public at large. We believe that your support will help create the climate for larger and increasingly disruptive expressions of dissent – a development that is sorely needed and long overdue.

We hope that we can count on you to exercise the leadership that is required of all of us in these desperate times.
Best Regards,
Sen. James Abourezk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Abourezk)
Rocky Anderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson)
Jared Ball (http://www.freepress.net/node/39113)
Russel Banks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Banks)
Thomas Bias
Cheryl Biren (http://www.opednews.com/author/author3644.html)
Noam Chomsky (http://www.chomsky.info/)
Bruce Dixon (http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/about-us)
Frank Dorrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Dorrel)
Gidon Eshel (http://www.bard.edu/academics/faculty/faculty.php?action=details&id=2436)
Jamilla El-Shafei (http://www.mahalo.com/jamilla-el-shafei)
Okla Elliott (http://asitoughttobe.wordpress.com/)
Norman Finkelstein (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/)
Glen Ford (http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/about-us)
Joshua Frank (http://www.greenmuckraker.com/)
Margaret Flowers M.D. (http://www.pnhp.org/states/maryland)
John Gerassi (http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/2010103107412190)
Henry Giroux (http://www.henryagiroux.com/)
Matt Gonzalez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gonzalez)
Kevin Alexander Gray (http://thenewliberator.wordpress.com/about/)
Judd Greenstein (http://www.juddgreenstein.com/)
DeeDee Halleck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeeDee_Halleck)
John Halle (http://www.johnhalle.com/)
Chris Hedges (http://www.truthdig.com/chris_hedges)
Doug Henwood (http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/)
Edward S. Herman (http://zcommunications.org/zspace/edwardherman)
Dahr Jamail (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/)
Rob Kall (http://www.opednews.com/author/diary/author2.html)
Louis Kampf (http://www.thenation.com/authors/louis-kampf)
Allison Kilkenny (http://allisonkilkenny.com/)
Jamie Kilstein (http://jamiekilstein.com/)
Joel Kovel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Kovel)
Mark Kurlansky (http://www.markkurlansky.com/)
Peter Linebaugh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Linebaugh)
Scott McClarty (http://www.gp.org/speakers/detail.php?ID=36)
Cynthia McKinney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney)
Dede Miller (http://www.opednews.com/author/author56650.html)
Russell Mokhiber (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Russell_Mokhiber)
Bobby Muller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Muller)
Christian Parenti (http://www.christianparenti.com/)
Michael Perelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Perelman)
Peter Phillips (http://dailycensored.com/writers/peter-phillips/)
Louis Proyect (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/)
Ted Rall (http://www.rall.com/)
Michael Ratner (http://www.michaelratner.com/blog/)
Cindy Sheehan (http://cindysheehanssoapbox.com/)
Paul Street (http://www.paulstreet.org/)
Sunil Sharma (http://dissidentvoice.org/about/)
Jeffrey St. Clair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_St._Clair)
Len Weinglass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Weinglass)
Cornel West (http://www.cornelwest.com/)
Sherry Wolf (http://sherrytalksback.wordpress.com/)
Michael Yates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yates_%28economist%29)
Mickey Z (http://www.mickeyz.net/)
Kevin Zeese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Zeese)

Crux

10th December 2010, 10:22

What We Are Proposing

1 | Militant Protest. The December 16th White House civil disobedience (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/) should be the beginning. Protests should take their inspiration from the British Students, the French unions’ shutdowns of oil refineries and transportation hubs and the general strikes engaged in by Greek and Spanish workers protesting neo-liberal austerity.
2 | Independent Left Politics. Political organizations independent of the Democratic Party and its satellites in the foundations, think tanks and the academy.
3 | Viable and Competitive Third Parties: Serious commitment to the development of Green Party (http://www.gp.org/index.php), U.S. Labor Party (http://www.thelaborparty.org/), Peace and Freedom (http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/), and Socialist Party infrastructure (including strategic mergers of these where appropriate) on local, state and national level.

I think this is pretty awesome, to be honest.

Martin Blank

10th December 2010, 11:17

graymouser

10th December 2010, 11:27

Dear "high profile progressive supporters of the Obama electoral campaign",

In regards to your recent "Open Letter to the Left Establishment", published on the www.protestobama.org (http://www.protestobama.org) website:

We told you so.

With sincere regards,
Editorial Board, Working People's Advocate newspaper
Central Committee, Workers Party in America
Central Committee, Communist League
Monday Morning Armchair Columnist, author of The Long Knives of LSD Liberalism
A lot of the people who are signers of that "Open Letter" were opposed to Obama from the word go. A few supported a tactical vote - I know Chomsky did, which is his perennial weakness, but I think the majority never went on board the Obama train. So I think your "I told you so" is directed for the most part to the same people the "Open Letter" is critiquing.

I think it's positive that they're talking about institutions and so forth independent of the Democrats. Still, I think the whole "let's get arrested Dec. 16th" thing is predictable and tired liberal bullshit.

Crux

10th December 2010, 11:44

ON EDIT: I just re-read this letter. This is not a letter from Micheal Moore, et al., but rather a letter to them asking for their support of the actions proposed on the website. It's really just a sham appeal from various radical-liberal and social-democratic individuals and organizations to give themselves a place.
http://protestobama.org/what-we-were-saying/

Hey, I freely admit, it's not the second coming of christ or anything, but it is something, and particularly this:
What is the Left Establishment?

A self identified leftist, progressive or leftist/progressive organizations with connections and/or direct access to high traffic websites, network television networks, major publishing houses, “alternative” news weeklies, and also to foundations and progressive think tanks. Seen by the alternative and mainstream media as “credible” voices for progressive causes-regardless of whether the actual positions endorsed by them (most notably support for an objectively reactionary candidate) are in any way definable as progressive, let alone leftist.
Their responsibility: The Left Establishment functioned as an enthusiastic sales force for what the campaign itself referred to as “Brand Obama”. (See what they were saying (http://protestobama.org/what-they-were-saying-2/)). They continued to do so long after it became obvious that the Obama administration was hostile to the left (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025030384695158.html?m od=WSJ_latestheadlines#printMode) agenda and to leftists themselves.
New Voices Wanted: The left needs a principled, unapologetic commitment both to transformative anti-capitalist governance and to protest and resistance on the scale and intensity necessary to bring it about. We would welcome all to join in our efforts to achieve these goals.

Facebook (http://protestobama.org/what-is-the-establishment-left/?share=facebook&nb=1)
Email (http://protestobama.org/what-is-the-establishment-left/?share=email&nb=1)

Reddit (http://protestobama.org/what-is-the-establishment-left/?share=reddit&nb=1)
Digg (http://protestobama.org/what-is-the-establishment-left/?share=digg&nb=1)

StumbleUpon (http://protestobama.org/what-is-the-establishment-left/?share=stumbleupon&nb=1)

My bold. The references to the anti-austerity protests in europe are also important.

Martin Blank

10th December 2010, 12:06

A lot of the people who are signers of that "Open Letter" were opposed to Obama from the word go. A few supported a tactical vote - I know Chomsky did, which is his perennial weakness, but I think the majority never went on board the Obama train. So I think your "I told you so" is directed for the most part to the same people the "Open Letter" is critiquing.

See my edited comments.

I think it's positive that they're talking about institutions and so forth independent of the Democrats. Still, I think the whole "let's get arrested Dec. 16th" thing is predictable and tired liberal bullshit.

I don't see it as positive at all. Declaring in advance which groups are the vehicles of their regroupment project smacks of a really arrogant sectarianism. I mean, really? The Greens, "Labor Party", P&F and the SPUSA?! I wonder if any of these organizations know they've been deemed worthy of such anointing as the "Official Vessels of the New Jerusalem".

This is not the coming of a new "mass labor party" or whatever people want to call it. At best, this will be an attempt to alchemically merge these four parties into a socialist-tinged left-populist party that opportunistically appeals to the "little guy" and "Main Street".

If a bona fide labor party cannot be organized at Chicago then I hope that no party at all will issue from that conference. Better far no party than a nondescript imitation of one, composed of so-called progressive and reform elements, more or less muddled, discordant, and wholly lacking in clear aim, definite object, and concerted purpose.

A “third party” of such a nature would at best align the dwindling “little interests” against the “big interests,” seek to patch up and prolong the present corrupt and collapsing capitalist system, and failing utterly to effect any material change or achieve any substantial benefit would finally fizzle out and add one more to the list of “third party” fiascoes.

I'm with Debs on this one.

Delenda Carthago

10th December 2010, 12:13

The election of Obama has not galvanized protest movements.

Gee, I wonder why...

Martin Blank

10th December 2010, 12:17

Hey, I freely admit, it's not the second coming of christ or anything, but it is something...

Not really. These are the "Avocado Greens", Z Magazine, Monthly Review, and elements of DSA, Solidarity, CCDS and the Peace & Freedom Party. And I suspect that the only real "goal" of this project is a left-populist radical-liberal "third party" for the 2012 presidential sweepstakes.

The references to the anti-austerity protests in europe are also important.

Given who's at the core of this new online amalgamation, I'm not. Many of these folks have no problem exploiting others' struggles for their own gain.

Crux

10th December 2010, 12:34

See my edited comments.

I don't see it as positive at all. Declaring in advance which groups are the vehicles of their regroupment project smacks of a really arrogant sectarianism. I mean, really? The Greens, "Labor Party", P&F and the SPUSA?! I wonder if any of these organizations know they've been deemed worthy of such anointing as the "Official Vessels of the New Jerusalem".

This is not the coming of a new "mass labor party" or whatever people want to call it. At best, this will be an attempt to alchemically merge these four parties into a socialist-tinged left-populist party that opportunistically appeals to the "little guy" and "Main Street".

I'm with Debs on this one.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself a bit here, this is all pretty brand new. I don't think you should see the groups mentioned as set in stone, but more an aspiration to get beyond the Democrats. Of course this must be built from below, but this could also serve as a starting point for that, it's a progressive step. Even if this just leads to a radical reformist party, the important question to ask is which direction it is moving. New socialist mass parties are not formed out of thin air. I am not trying to overstate this, but again, I do think it is a progressive step and it will be interesting to see where it goes.

Salyut

10th December 2010, 12:45

Hedges and a few others are gonna try to chain themselves to the fence.

awesome

Martin Blank

10th December 2010, 12:52

I think you're getting ahead of yourself a bit here, this is all pretty brand new. I don't think you should see the groups mentioned as set in stone, but more an aspiration to get beyond the Democrats. Of course this must be built from below, but this could also serve as a starting point for that, it's a progressive step. Even if this just leads to a radical reformist party, the important question to ask is which direction it is moving. New socialist mass parties are not formed out of thin air. I am not trying to overstate this, but again, I do think it is a progressive step and it will be interesting to see where it goes.

This kind of regroupment or rapprochement has been done to death in America. This is how the Labor Party started (actually, the Labor Party started on a better basis than this); this is how the Association of State Green Parties developed; this is how DSA came about. We don't need another radical-liberal, left-populist, social-democratic, etc. (or any combination thereof), political party in the U.S. It's time to stop building up "third parties" that will either fizzle into oblivion or betray working people if given a chance, thus pushing back the opportunities for revolutionary communist workers' organizations for yet another generation (or two).

At this time, especially, it is a recipe for defeat and betrayal. I'm fairly confident that we in the U.S. are heading into a major political crisis over the next two years, and the last thing we need muddying up the waters is another bullshit populist party confusing and confounding our class.

I would rather this effort die on the vine.

Crux

10th December 2010, 13:04

Widerstand

10th December 2010, 13:33

Gee, I wonder why...

yeah.

>my face when parliamentary politics :laugh:

Hoipolloi Cassidy

10th December 2010, 13:33

Speaking strictly of Lenin as a brilliant strategist (mostly out of What Is To Be Done):

Alliances or splits with "progressives" should hinge on whether you can split them along the lines of their own contradictions - in fact, you encourage these contradictions, sending half of them scurrying rightward and radicalizing the rest.

And what is the blatant contradiction in the above manifesto? It's the contradiction between a couple of progressives chaining themselves to a fence and the call for an organized third party. As usual, the invitation to mass suicide from the elite should be firmly resisted - if Chris Hedges chains himself to a fence he's out of jail in an hour. If a worker does the same he loses his job on Monday, and that's why Hedges does it.

As to the invitation to form a third party, the progressives are tempted by it and terrified of it, once it's out of the box who knows what lowlifes will turn up? Just read dailykos.com, where the boldest bravely talk about drafting that "Independent," Bernie Sanders, to run against Obama in the Democratic primaries. (!!!!) In other terms, to do their dirty work for them and then disappear.

Here's my response (not from Lenin, but from Saturday Night Fever):

"Do you think you could be friends with a... Marxist?"

Solidarity!

Amphictyonis

10th December 2010, 13:42

Spawn of Stalin

10th December 2010, 14:04

Oh dear, it's all a bit sad really. Americans don't need to be enlisting the support of Michael Moore et al, these people aren't stupid, they know Obama fucked up, they knew he would fuck up, before he even had a chance to fuck up, I doubt we'll be seeing U-turns from very many "progressive" Obamaites soon. Spend your time more wisely build your parties, build your local union branches, build links with working class communities. Chaining yourself to the White House perimeter fence doesn't achieve any of that, sure you might get your face on TV for a few seconds, but it doesn't change anything.

Aurora

10th December 2010, 14:05

I cant believe this thread, all the 'i told you so' shit is depressing. A group of people are quite rightly pissed off with Obama's bullshit and are calling for progressives to walk away from the democrats towards the left openly calling for mass protest and demonstrations and even the forming of a third party. I for one would be very happy if Micheal Moore broke with the democrats, imagine his last film without any mention of Obama.
This should be encouraged by us and we should participate and suggest a direction to go in, i really think some of you should fall out of your ivory towers and recognise that no one is born a revolutionary socialist.

Die Neue Zeit

10th December 2010, 15:31

That's rather defeatist of you.

A proletarian-not-necessarily-communist party isn't the same thing as a "bourgeois workers" / "labour" party or the kind of populist party proposed in the Open Letter. It isn't the same thing as a communist sect, either.

I forgot to add: it should have been an "open letter" to the Green party itself suggesting a relabelling to "Progressive Party" or something. That would attract more votes than the Green label.

graymouser

10th December 2010, 15:44

This kind of regroupment or rapprochement has been done to death in America. This is how the Labor Party started (actually, the Labor Party started on a better basis than this); this is how the Association of State Green Parties developed; this is how DSA came about. We don't need another radical-liberal, left-populist, social-democratic, etc. (or any combination thereof), political party in the U.S. It's time to stop building up "third parties" that will either fizzle into oblivion or betray working people if given a chance, thus pushing back the opportunities for revolutionary communist workers' organizations for yet another generation (or two).

At this time, especially, it is a recipe for defeat and betrayal. I'm fairly confident that we in the U.S. are heading into a major political crisis over the next two years, and the last thing we need muddying up the waters is another bullshit populist party confusing and confounding our class.

I would rather this effort die on the vine.
There's some correct statements in the above, but on the whole I think it has to be taken quite critically.

What the Obama administration's two years have revealed is fairly straightforward. The left in the United States does not have almost any functioning structures of resistance - in almost any terms - independent of the Democratic Party. Not only are there no political parties, but there are no funding groups, very few meeting spaces, comparatively few membership groups, and not much by way of organizers independent of the Dems. What little existed by way of resistance to Bush, aside from a few exceptions like International ANSWER, was dominated root and branch by forces that have totally withdrawn and are giving Obama as much support as they can, like MoveOn.org (which provided a lot of the funding for United for Peace & Justice; UFPJ collapsed when MoveOn pulled out). This has left activists stunned as marches have gone down to 5000-10000 die-hards, many of them committed socialists, when before Obama's election we had hundreds of thousands in the capital.

I agree that we don't need more Green Party type shenanigans - the GP has been an unholy mess that should not repeat itself. But we also don't need more tiny communist sects that will angrily shout that we need the revolutionary party now. Yes, we do need a revolutionary party - but the road there is neither through the Greens nor the sects. At this point, we have to tell people like Hedges and Chomsky and so on, that the left doesn't need them chained to the White House fence, but it needs an infrastructure that is organizationally and politically independent of the Democratic Party. Once we have that conversation, then we can talk about what to build and what the long-term goals are.

IronEastBloc

10th December 2010, 15:53

Crux

10th December 2010, 19:00

Even if we get Michael Moore, Ed Schultz, etc. on our side, come next election cycle, they'll be back throwing their support behind another bourgeois democrat, completely forgetting (or choosing to forget) what happened the last time.

I say fuck them. they have enough media influence to support socialism openly and proudly, but do they? in Moore's case, it's a very meek form of socialism that reeks of nationalism.
Unless there is a force that forces them to choose sides, in a serious way, beyond election cycles. I don't find the statements made on protestobama.org particularly electioneering oriented, quite the opposite, there are at least allusions being made to something else, a protest movement able to pull more than just the left, but as they term it, the masses, to use the latent power that was shown in the massive anti-war movement to challenge Obama, and even mentions of anti-capitalism. Now this might just be a blip on the map, but shooting it down directly is I think very unwise.

Martin Blank

10th December 2010, 19:01

That's rather defeatist of you.

It's not defeatism. Defeatism implies that any effort to build a mass working-class party is useless. I don't believe that.

But the road to a mass working-class party is not through petty-bourgeois intellectuals, radical-liberal protest groups and/or the walking-dead "third parties". A mass working-class party comes out of the class struggle and interaction between the class and various organizations that claim to be partisans of the proletariat. It comes from the class, incorporates those existing organizations that are a part of the class or seen as genuine reflections of the political consciousness of the class, and builds on and strengthens those meager foundations.

I think there is a fundamental difference of perspective here that also needs to be addressed (more on this below).

What the Obama administration's two years have revealed is fairly straightforward. The left in the United States does not have almost any functioning structures of resistance - in almost any terms - independent of the Democratic Party. Not only are there no political parties, but there are no funding groups, very few meeting spaces, comparatively few membership groups, and not much by way of organizers independent of the Dems. What little existed by way of resistance to Bush, aside from a few exceptions like International ANSWER, was dominated root and branch by forces that have totally withdrawn and are giving Obama as much support as they can, like MoveOn.org (which provided a lot of the funding for United for Peace & Justice; UFPJ collapsed when MoveOn pulled out). This has left activists stunned as marches have gone down to 5000-10000 die-hards, many of them committed socialists, when before Obama's election we had hundreds of thousands in the capital.

Everything you say is factually accurate, but you seem to be implying that the collapse of the movements based on liberal activists (e.g., UFPJ) on the eve of Obama's election came as some great surprise to everyone. Did you not know this was going to happen? Did you not anticipate it? I ask genuinely, because I would think that revolutionaries would have known that the petty-bourgeois liberals and small-d democrats would break with the antiwar and anti-repression movements when it was clear their chosen candidates were going to sail into power.

And the fact is that we've had this problem since the collapse of the broader workers' movement. And I would expect that, even if this four-way GP-P&F-LP-SP dance was to succeed, we as revolutionaries (even if we all liquidated into this party) would still not have the "functioning structures of resistance". Instead, we would have a "third party" with its own structures, and all of us still more or less on the outside ... unless we give up our politics and bury ourselves in this populist mess.

I agree that we don't need more Green Party type shenanigans - the GP has been an unholy mess that should not repeat itself. But we also don't need more tiny communist sects that will angrily shout that we need the revolutionary party now. Yes, we do need a revolutionary party - but the road there is neither through the Greens nor the sects. At this point, we have to tell people like Hedges and Chomsky and so on, that the left doesn't need them chained to the White House fence, but it needs an infrastructure that is organizationally and politically independent of the Democratic Party. Once we have that conversation, then we can talk about what to build and what the long-term goals are.

Two things on this:

First, if all you're looking for is "an infrastructure that is organizationally and politically independent of the Democratic Party", that is all you'll get. It's just like all the liberals screaming "Anybody But Bush" in 2004. That's what they wanted, and that's all they got. Kerry was Not-Bush, even though his politics were fundamentally no different from Bush's. Obama was similar. He was Not-Bush-or-McCain, even though his politics were also no different than Bush's (or McCain's). This effort may indeed yield a new "third party" that is "organizationally and politically independent of the Democratic Party", but that's all it will be: Not-Democrats. Such a two-stage method of mass party-building never really works. I've been a member of three of these four parties over the years, and none of them, either together or separately, can become a mass working-class party. They can be the Not-Democratic Party (i.e., define themselves by what they're not, instead of what they are), but that's all.

Second, I think we have a fundamental difference over this question of the "left". I have said it before and I will say it again, there is no singular community of people that can be called the "left". There are individuals and organizations that identify themselves as "left", but there are no common or unifying principles or values shared by every person and group that calls itself "left". Moreover, and more to the point here, there is no singular "left-right" spectrum, with revolutionaries at one end and fascists at the other. This is a myth perpetuated by bourgeois ideology -- a myth that serves to keep radicals, small-d democrats, and even self-described socialists and communists tied to the capitalist political order. A "left" bourgeois or petty bourgeois is not fundamentally the same as a "left" proletarian. Each class has its own "left-right" spectrum; sometimes, they seem to intersect, but that's a matter of perspective. It's like looking at a 3D optical illusion. From above, they look like a singular spectrum. But from the ground, you can see that there are unbridgeable gaps between, for example, the proletarian and petty-bourgeois spectra. As communists, the only "left-right" spectrum we should be consistently dealing with is the one for the working class. Leave the non-proletarian elements to play their own games, and let's not be distracted at a time when we can all be doing our best political work.

Crux

10th December 2010, 19:11

It's not defeatism. Defeatism implies that any effort to build a mass working-class party is useless. I don't believe that.

But the road to a mass working-class party is not through petty-bourgeois intellectuals, radical-liberal protest groups and/or the walking-dead "third parties". A mass working-class party comes out of the class struggle and interaction between the class and various organizations that claim to be partisans of the proletariat. It comes from the class, incorporates those existing organizations that are a part of the class or seen as genuine reflections of the political consciousness of the class, and builds on and strengthens those meager foundations.

I think there is a fundamental difference of perspective here that also needs to be addressed (more on this below).

Everything you say is factually accurate, but you seem to be implying that the collapse of the movements based on liberal activists (e.g., UFPJ) on the eve of Obama's election came as some great surprise to everyone. Did you not know this was going to happen? Did you not anticipate it? I ask genuinely, because I would think that revolutionaries would have known that the petty-bourgeois liberals and small-d democrats would break with the antiwar and anti-repression movements when it was clear their chosen candidates were going to sail into power.

And the fact is that we've had this problem since the collapse of the broader workers' movement. And I would expect that, even if this four-way GP-P&F-LP-SP dance was to succeed, we as revolutionaries (even if we all liquidated into this party) would still not have the "functioning structures of resistance". Instead, we would have a "third party" with its own structures, and all of us still more or less on the outside ... unless we give up our politics and bury ourselves in this populist mess.

Two things on this:

First, if all you're looking for is "an infrastructure that is organizationally and politically independent of the Democratic Party", that is all you'll get. It's just like all the liberals screaming "Anybody But Bush" in 2004. That's what they wanted, and that's all they got. Kerry was Not-Bush, even though his politics were fundamentally no different from Bush's. Obama was similar. He was Not-Bush-or-McCain, even though his politics were also no different than Bush's (or McCain's). This effort may indeed yield a new "third party" that is "organizationally and politically independent of the Democratic Party", but that's all it will be: Not-Democrats. Such a two-stage method of mass party-building never really works. I've been a member of three of these four parties over the years, and none of them, either together or separately, can become a mass working-class party. They can be the Not-Democratic Party (i.e., define themselves by what they're not, instead of what they are), but that's all.

Second, I think we have a fundamental difference over this question of the "left". I have said it before and I will say it again, there is no singular community of people that can be called the "left". There are individuals and organizations that identify themselves as "left", but there are no common or unifying principles or values shared by every person and group that calls itself "left". Moreover, and more to the point here, there is no singular "left-right" spectrum, with revolutionaries at one end and fascists at the other. This is a myth perpetuated by bourgeois ideology -- a myth that serves to keep radicals, small-d democrats, and even self-described socialists and communists tied to the capitalist political order. A "left" bourgeois or petty bourgeois is not fundamentally the same as a "left" proletarian. Each class has its own "left-right" spectrum; sometimes, they seem to intersect, but that's a matter of perspective. It's like looking at a 3D optical illusion. From above, they look like a singular spectrum. But from the ground, you can see that there are unbridgeable gaps between, for example, the proletarian and petty-bourgeois spectra. As communists, the only "left-right" spectrum we should be consistently dealing with is the one for the working class. Leave the non-proletarian elements to play their own games, and let's not be distracted at a time when we can all be doing our best political work.
Okay then, let me restate, you are being mechanic and bitter. there is ample evidence throghout history that revolutionary groups can form out not-so-revolutionary or not-so-proletarian formations. And there is ample evidence that not only purely proletarian groups can pull the working class into motion. And this is the fundamental question here. The path is not dotted and straight-forward. You act as if I am advocating another Green party. I am not. And to assume one must liquidate to work inside another political formation is just absurd, that, comrade, is defeatism.

manic expression

10th December 2010, 19:49

I don't care how or why it happens, political instability within the capitalist parties is a good enough thing on its own, IMO. The economic crisis shook capitalist society quite a bit, but in terms of politics the Obama bandwagon softened the effect...but now it's clear that Obama just postponed it.

Any disruption in the voting blocs of either major party would have an impact...even a 5% revolt (3rd party or abstaining) on the left or right could tip the scales and rock the boat. That's now becoming a possibility due to Obama's utterly predictable continuation of Bush's policies (even I'm somewhat surprised he's run so blatantly to the right on some issues, actually). Even if it doesn't happen in any significant way this time around, the Tea Party seems set to do the same thing on the other side. The center cannot hold...which is bad for capitalism and good for the workers. That's what counts the most right now. Where the left-wing Democrat exodus leads (if such a thing even happens) is secondary...a strong and visible revolutionary party will likely help solve those problems on its own.

10th December 2010, 22:17

Crux

11th December 2010, 00:37

11th December 2010, 00:44

Dude don't be a dick, I wasn't talking about liquidationism, I was referring to the tactics that SA has used in the past, on the Nader campaign for example, and also their overall outlook regarding the two party system and their desire for a "mass workers' party". It all goes in line with what I wrote, so no, it isn't a straw man, bro.

Crux

11th December 2010, 00:45

11th December 2010, 00:48

And to think I used to respect you as a poster on here. Instead of actually responding to what I wrote you just chime in with typical RevLeft crap. You're disappointing.

Crux

11th December 2010, 01:11

And to think I used to respect you as a poster on here. Instead of actually responding to what I wrote you just chime in with typical RevLeft crap. You're disappointing.
It's late. I am drunk. I think your point is fundamentally invalid and shows a misunderstanding of the CWI position, just as those going on about us wanting "Labour mark 2" does. I'll get back to you tomorrow, okay? I mean, obviously it is a point worth explaining. Although I think I've touched upon it slightly in my response to Miles.

DaringMehring

11th December 2010, 01:22

The demands call for explicitly anti-capitalist politics. That is something above the usual populism. The demands also call for independence from the Democratic Party. That is also significant.

However, the demands center themselves on a set of rich, professional pundit, Democrat supporters --- the worst group of people to pin progressive hopes on. Those clowns should be reviled and ignored.

The popular movement won't come from above. It will come from below, from people doing work with the people and communities they know, to fight back. It will only be sold out, from above.

However, there is a duality in that, while workers need to get in motion, it helps them to activate if they see some signal to fight. There could be some value in high-profile fight back and dissent, as a spark rather than as a leading force.

Third party formations have a long history of falling apart. They tie themselves to the bourgeois electoral game, lose out, and collapse, split along internal fault lines, or never really get going. The key is -- the formation should not put electoral politics as its only priority, and the formation should advance consciousness so that even if it falls apart, thousands will have found a higher level of struggle.

I think in the USA, we need to support, if not this, something like this. Our first priority needs to be getting people to think outside of the Democratic Party and the bourgeois electoral game. We need open anti-capitalist struggle -- even if it is deformed.

The problem with this particular attempt, is it places the power in the hands of the likes of Tom Hayden and Katrina van den Heuvel. Really, the attempt should simply have been to start organizing, and castigate any Tom Hayden who refuses to participate.

Nonetheless, if it starts to get going, it could offer good prospects for advancing radical struggles and consciousness.

syndicat

11th December 2010, 02:10

Some of the signers can be considred revolutionary socialists or close to it (and one is a member of my own organization). It's positive for them to call for militancy and a break with the Dems. these two points are absolutely critical for the U.S.

other people here who denounce them for their references to "a viable third party" are people who believe that socialism can be constructed by parties, which I think is a mistake. Since I put no stock in parties anyway, particularly electoral ones, I have no objection to the idea of some third party initiative, but only so long as it doesn't become the main thing. the problem with this statement is that because of the overwheliming tendency at present to define "politics" in terms of electoral politics in the U.S., no form of electoral politics can be something worth putting much support into.

Fulanito de Tal

11th December 2010, 02:56

Wait...is this a militant protest? With armed protesters???? By veterans with military training??????

Or am I confused?

Pretty Flaco

11th December 2010, 03:09

Wait...is this a militant protest? With armed protesters???? By veterans with military training??????

Or am I confused?

You are very confused. There's going to be a protest led by veterans of former wars who oppose the current ones. No violence at all.

Fulanito de Tal

11th December 2010, 05:03

You are very confused. There's going to be a protest led by veterans of former wars who oppose the current ones. No violence at all.

Oh :rolleyes:

RedTrackWorker

11th December 2010, 05:45

If revolutionaries can get distracted or excited by a letter like this to the likes of Michael Moore, it's just another illustration of what's wrong with the "left" and why the "left" offers nothing but problems for the workers' movement.
Let's say these great progressives read the letter, fell down, hit their heads and woke up confused and supported it and all go get arrested together. And then they all make the Green Party but supercharged or whatever (which then in the face of whatever "crazy" the Republicans run, most of the supporters vote for the Democrat anyway). Am I less likely to lose my pension? Is my unemployed friend more likely to get better benefits? Probably not.
What if, instead, they wrote a letter to the union heads and to all union members and members of other Black, Latino and immigrant mass organizations, saying, "Some of you have started talking tough on the attacks coming from Democratic and Republic state governments and the federal government, but where is the unity in action? Where is the attempt to build a movement?"
Take my local, Transport Workers Union Local 100. Despite having a large presence in New York City, the International Socialist Organization has done nothing but play nice with my union leadership, interviewing the worker that organized their slate, inviting him to speak at their meetings and never, ever running an article criticizing my union leadership for allowing almost 1000 workers to get laid off without a fight.
Sherry Wolf, an ISO leader, signed the "Michael Moore" plea letter, but she won't write an article criticizing Samuelsen (my union's president), much less attempt to build a principled opposition in the Local, which if it moves, could help the much-more oppressed and exploited workers of NYC find a means of fighting back.
I understand, given the lack of a mass movement here, that such letters can seem appealing, but think of to whom and for what the letter is addressed. Is it really a way forward? No, the best it has to offer is "One Nation, Working Together" part two, just with more "left" sprinkles in the rhetoric.

Some of the signers can be considred revolutionary socialists or close to it (and one is a member of my own organization). It's positive for them to call for militancy and a break with the Dems. these two points are absolutely critical for the U.S.

other people here who denounce them for their references to "a viable third party" are people who believe that socialism can be constructed by parties, which I think is a mistake. Since I put no stock in parties anyway, particularly electoral ones, I have no objection to the idea of some third party initiative, but only so long as it doesn't become the main thing. the problem with this statement is that because of the overwheliming tendency at present to define "politics" in terms of electoral politics in the U.S., no form of electoral politics can be something worth putting much support into.

While I am critical of WSA, I'm surprised someone in that group would sign it and you would be seemingly uncritical of them signing it, but critical of the statement. While I agree with "militancy" and breaking with the Democrats, the whole thrust of the letter is not actually in that direction in my estimation, as I wrote above. I would not want my name associated with such pleading to "progressives." I'm not going to tell my coworkers that "We need Michael Moore! Sign this!" I'll sign--and did sign--a letter to my union president telling him that Iranian trade union leaders are in prision and could use whatever assistance our local could give, especially organizing a protest using our much greater resources. But I'm not signing a letter to washed-up (at best) "leaders" pleading with them to help us, and I wouldn't stand for my organization to be associated with such drivel.

NewSocialist

11th December 2010, 07:17

Not really. These are the "Avocado Greens", Z Magazine, Monthly Review, and elements of DSA, Solidarity, CCDS and the Peace & Freedom Party. And I suspect that the only real "goal" of this project is a left-populist radical-liberal "third party" for the 2012 presidential sweepstakes.

Given who's at the core of this new online amalgamation, I'm not. Many of these folks have no problem exploiting others' struggles for their own gain.

I'm just curious, what do you have against Znet? Given, I don't know a whole lot about Michael Albert and many groups and sites you listed, but from what I've read of them they seem OK.

Die Neue Zeit

11th December 2010, 07:29

It's the distinction between the "petit-bourgeois" or non-worker left and the worker-class left.

Okay then, let me restate, you are being mechanic and bitter. there is ample evidence throghout history that revolutionary groups can form out not-so-revolutionary or not-so-proletarian formations. And there is ample evidence that not only purely proletarian groups can pull the working class into motion. And this is the fundamental question here. The path is not dotted and straight-forward. You act as if I am advocating another Green party. I am not. And to assume one must liquidate to work inside another political formation is just absurd, that, comrade, is defeatism.

The problem always arises after revolutions. Without workers-only membership policies, those in power will inevitably represent other classes.

It's late. I am drunk. I think your point is fundamentally invalid and shows a misunderstanding of the CWI position, just as those going on about us wanting "Labour mark 2" does. I'll get back to you tomorrow, okay? I mean, obviously it is a point worth explaining. Although I think I've touched upon it slightly in my response to Miles.

The present CWI position does call for "Labour Mark II." Where is the organizing of workers into a political class for itself? Where is the overthrow of the bourgeois cultural hegemony? Where is the conquest of ruling-class political power in policymaking and other spheres by the proletariat? By relying too much on trade unions, the first point gets shot down quickly, and from there the other two points.

A "left" bourgeois or petty bourgeois is not fundamentally the same as a "left" proletarian. Each class has its own "left-right" spectrum; sometimes, they seem to intersect, but that's a matter of perspective. It's like looking at a 3D optical illusion. From above, they look like a singular spectrum. But from the ground, you can see that there are unbridgeable gaps between, for example, the proletarian and petty-bourgeois spectra.

I'd like to ask comrade Miles this question, and I think this refers to "serious electoralism" and "serious abstentionism" as well.

When would it be or not be appropriate to have a "serious" electoral alliance between an independent worker-class party-movement and a radical-left non-worker movement? Such "serious" electoral alliance would also conduct joint spoilage campaigns.

The reason I ask this is that it should teach both groups that even "serious" electoralism shouldn't become parliamentary cretinism. Both groups would emphasize their activism outside the electoral alliance (like sociopolitical syndicalism for the former and protest fetishes plus tailing tred-iunion work for the latter).

RedTrackWorker

11th December 2010, 07:44

I'm just curious, what do you have against Znet? Given, I don't know a whole lot about Michael Albert and many groups and sites you listed, but from what I've read of them they seem okay.

I know you weren't asking me, but here's my take:
When I first became "radicalized" as they say, I read Znet morning, day and night. And I learned a lot. I remember reading Chomsky one day though and thinking, "OK, now what? The U.S. is evil and did this and that bad thing. Now what?"
So while now I think that there are various theoretical limitations to the Znet grouping, my initial problem was with the "what is to be done?" question--what direction do they offer? I was an anarchist at the time so I didn't phrase the question in Lenin's phrase on purpose, but I felt strongly about the need to change society and didn't see that on Znet.
I'd find it hard to specify further now because I haven't been following and they don't attempt to represent a coherent worldview but are a conglomeration of viewpoints so it'd be hard for me to critique them, but in terms of developing and defending theory, strategy, tactics, etc. that can lead the workers' movement to victory--I don't think Znet even's a contender when looked at from that perspective.

NewSocialist

11th December 2010, 08:07

I know you weren't asking me, but here's my take:
When I first became "radicalized" as they say, I read Znet morning, day and night. And I learned a lot. I remember reading Chomsky one day though and thinking, "OK, now what? The U.S. is evil and did this and that bad thing. Now what?"
So while now I think that there are various theoretical limitations to the Znet grouping, my initial problem was with the "what is to be done?" question--what direction do they offer? I was an anarchist at the time so I didn't phrase the question in Lenin's phrase on purpose, but I felt strongly about the need to change society and didn't see that on Znet.
I'd find it hard to specify further now because I haven't been following and they don't attempt to represent a coherent worldview but are a conglomeration of viewpoints so it'd be hard for me to critique them, but in terms of developing and defending theory, strategy, tactics, etc. that can lead the workers' movement to victory--I don't think Znet even's a contender when looked at from that perspective.

With respect to Chomsky, you're totally right and I felt the same after reading his books. Michael Albert always tries to get Chomsky to write about his solutions to capitalism in detail, but he refuses to write anything more than he thinks working people should control the businesses they work in and democracy needs to be expanded.

However, Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel of Znet have been writing about their alternative to capitalism [participatory planning] for years now. I personally don't think it's a system that would work too well in practice, but it is a theory and that's better then nothing.

RedTrackWorker

11th December 2010, 08:27

However, Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel of Znet have been writing about their alternative to capitalism [participatory planning] for years now. I personally don't think it's a system that would work too well in practice, but it is a theory and that's better then nothing.

Since it's been a while since I looked at parecon at all, I don't want to say there's nothing worth looking at there, but I'm pretty confident in saying I haven't seen anything positive from them on how to get there, see his conciliation toward the Democratic Party, that graveyard of mass movements here in the U.S.

graymouser

11th December 2010, 11:23

If revolutionaries can get distracted or excited by a letter like this to the likes of Michael Moore, it's just another illustration of what's wrong with the "left" and why the "left" offers nothing but problems for the workers' movement.
Seriously, I think that some people here have totally mis-construed this letter because Michael Moore is the first person listed in it. It's addressed to a group of high profile people who call themselves progressive but have supported Obama, and is calling bullshit on that support. We are in a period when every form of resistance has been subordinated to the Democrats, and the addressees of this open letter are the people who have been advocating for and enabling this subordination.

But more than that I am surprised by the fact that a lot of people here don't seem to get it with regard to the letter. It is demanding (although in mixed ways, as I said I am opposed to civil disobedience crap) that these figures who want to be seen as "progressive" take a stand against Obama - precisely because thousands of people who are genuinely progressive do listen to the "Left Establishment." While it's a flawed instrument for doing so, I think it's worthwhile inasmuch as it can serve as a door-opener to those people. In that sense, I see it as effectively propaganda - calling on people like Moore and van den Heuvel and so on to expose the wretchedness of their subservience to the Democrats.

And I think it's pointed at the "left wing" of the workers' movement as well, at least Bill Fletcher Jr. has tried to make his career as a left labor bureaucrat. To be blunt, the ostensible progressives are nowhere near as religiously committed to the Democratic Party as the union bureaucracy is.

Widerstand

11th December 2010, 11:49

the addressees of this open letter are the people who have been advocating for and enabling this subordination.

This does not realize that the "subordination under the Democrats/Obama" is in fact a subordination of the multitude under a few spokespersons or intellectuals. Resistance is subordinated under this "Left establishment", which channels it into a pro-Obama platform. If this is to stop, the "Left establishment" itself must be attacked. Failing this, the letter thereby is acknowledging and reproducing the subordination of resistance under the addressees.

graymouser

11th December 2010, 12:02

This does not realize that the "subordination under the Democrats/Obama" is in fact a subordination of the multitude under a few spokespersons or intellectuals. Resistance is subordinated under this "Left establishment", which channels it into a pro-Obama platform. If this is to stop, the "Left establishment" itself must be attacked. Failing this, the letter thereby is acknowledging and reproducing the subordination of resistance under the addressees.
It's a perfectly good and well-tested method of propaganda (in the sense of spreading ideas, of course) to issue a letter calling for people to denounce their current position. If they do, that's great, but it's usually not the expected result - which is rather to expose the people who you are ostensibly writing to as the frauds that they are. Again, I think this is why comrades here are not "getting it." This letter is precisely such a piece of exposition, and therefore much more effective than simply railing at people like the "Left Establishment." If you can't see that it is mostly written for the people who follow Moore, Solomon, van den Heuvel, Dyson, Ehrenreich, Frank, Hayden, Fletcher, Jackson and their ilk, and not for these figures themselves, then it's gone somewhat over your head.

Widerstand

11th December 2010, 12:09

It's a perfectly good and well-tested method of propaganda (in the sense of spreading ideas, of course) to issue a letter calling for people to denounce their current position. If they do, that's great, but it's usually not the expected result - which is rather to expose the people who you are ostensibly writing to as the frauds that they are. Again, I think this is why comrades here are not "getting it." This letter is precisely such a piece of exposition, and therefore much more effective than simply railing at people like the "Left Establishment." If you can't see that it is mostly written for the people who follow Moore, Solomon, van den Heuvel, Dyson, Ehrenreich, Frank, Hayden, Fletcher, Jackson and their ilk, and not for these figures themselves, then it's gone somewhat over your head.

If it's such a "well-tested method" I'm sure you can point me to instances where such letters actually made people turn away from the addressees?

Irregardless, this letter does not expose them in any way I'm afraid. All it does is attack the Obama administration, and ask the addressees to support protests against it. It's not emancipating anyone from them, it's trying to use them as a channel, reaffirming their power.

graymouser

11th December 2010, 17:58

If it's such a "well-tested method" I'm sure you can point me to instances where such letters actually made people turn away from the addressees?
The classic template I guess would be Emile Zola's "J'Accuse," in l'affaire Dreyfuss. It was one of the great all-time polemical letters, and was addressed directly to the president of France.

Irregardless, this letter does not expose them in any way I'm afraid. All it does is attack the Obama administration, and ask the addressees to support protests against it. It's not emancipating anyone from them, it's trying to use them as a channel, reaffirming their power.
This is all just silly. It's a letter demanding that the people who supported Obama get off it and work on movement-building in a public, identifiable way. That's a positive, although as I've said repeatedly I think the particular methodology leaves a lot to be desired.

Widerstand

11th December 2010, 18:04

The classic template I guess would be Emile Zola's "J'Accuse," in l'affaire Dreyfuss. It was one of the great all-time polemical letters, and was addressed directly to the president of France.

That letter accused the government of a variety of things. This letter calls for people to stop supporting Obama.

Not at all the same thing.

This is all just silly. It's a letter demanding that the people who supported Obama get off it and work on movement-building in a public, identifiable way. That's a positive, although as I've said repeatedly I think the particular methodology leaves a lot to be desired.

Yes, it is demanding that they do movement-building in public. It's asking for the public to do whatever their dear celebrity leaders say.

Crux

11th December 2010, 19:49

That letter accused the government of a variety of things. This letter calls for people to stop supporting Obama.

Not at all the same thing.

Yes, it is demanding that they do movement-building in public. It's asking for the public to do whatever their dear celebrity leaders say.
Eh, no. It's asking for people to protest against the government (they mention examples like France and Greece) and to build a anticapitalist leftwing force independent of the Democrats.

Crux

11th December 2010, 20:21

I am certainly not surprised that Mayakovsky or any CWI members are supportive of this as it is in a sense exactly what they have been calling for. That being said, I think that their position of "breaking the two party system" as the utmost important is opportunist to it's core, and that support of this coalition or what would come out of it is opportunist as well.

Miles makes some very valid points on how these are commonly dead end roads. Calling that defeatist doesn't make much sense - you might as well call it ultraleftist.

That being said, we need to take a look at the bigger picture here. I view this call as a good thing in the sense that organized struggle outside of the two party system - especially to the left, no matter how reformist - is a barometer of the opening up of the political arena in the US to alternatives to what is typically offered and therefore shows that we have a much broader field in which to operate. Certainly we can all agree that is q good thing.

At the same time we have to make sure that how we move forward is beneficial to the revolutionary socialist movement as an independent entity. We can't corral ourselves behind some reformist liberals, because that would be devastating, as history has shown.

Rather, we must maintain an independent position fighting for our political goals. And we have to determine how to advance our goals through these developments.

I'm on my phone I'll finish this later this probably doesn't make much sense because I can't read what I wrote.
Consider this a response to your follow up post as well.

So any support for anything that could come out of this coalition, assuming it turns into an actual political group, is opportunism?
I don't know what you would call such a political position but I'd call it defeatism.
Why even bother with the "commonly a dead end"? Say "always" if that is your political position.

Maybe I misunderstood Miles, but he seems to believe that this initiative is rather a distraction and fundamentally negative. It's good to see you do not share that position, but given your previous statement one has to wonder why. While you contradict Miles position, you certainly do not criticize it.

Yes we must maintain an independent position, if you can point to me, or anyone else in the CWI or anyone else in this thread saying "let's dissolve our political organizations!" I can't do anything else but call you out for using a straw man. So yeah. I stand by my previous post.

If you are curious about how the CWI work in or around other broader formations in countries where we do here is some suggested reading:

Italy, where we work in PRC: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4634
Germany, where we work in Die Linke: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4326
France, where we work in NPA: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4191
Greece, where we work in SYRIZA: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4567
Brazil, where we work in PSOL: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3698

Please tell me if you find that we have dissolved or subjugated our positions in any of these organizations.

RedTrackWorker

11th December 2010, 21:52

M talking about the CWI in broader formations:

Please tell me if you find that we have dissolved or subjugated our positions in any of these organizations.
Take the NPA. One of the key questions in the French struggles was the call for an all-out general strike to victory. The NPA played with this demand until the CGT stopped. Did the CWI say, "Look, this is what we need to do. The CGT leadership is an obstacle. The NPA leadership is not clearly explaining that the CGT leadership is an obstacle and so we must tell that truth to the workers." Not that I could see. All it would take is one link to disprove me, otherwise, you're part of the problem.

RedTrackWorker

11th December 2010, 22:03

And I think it's pointed at the "left wing" of the workers' movement as well, at least Bill Fletcher Jr. has tried to make his career as a left labor bureaucrat. To be blunt, the ostensible progressives are nowhere near as religiously committed to the Democratic Party as the union bureaucracy is.

If you can't see that it is mostly written for the people who follow Moore, Solomon, van den Heuvel, Dyson, Ehrenreich, Frank, Hayden, Fletcher, Jackson and their ilk, and not for these figures themselves, then it's gone somewhat over your head.

The fundamental difference between the union leaders and these "progressives" is that of class organization. These pro-Obama so-called progressives have followers based on their politics--i.e. most of the people that follow them follow them because of what they are saying. In other words, them saying something different doesn't necessarily change the course of their followers. So asking them to say something different is just asking for people with certain resources and media exposure to say or to do something.
But while the union leaders are superficially wedded more closely to the Democratic Party, they're actually responsible to their "followers" and influence them and are influenced by them in a completely different way, and a letter to those union leaders but actually aimed at the union base could shake things up. Yet you denounce that idea by saying the union leaders are "religiously committed" to the Democrats (which I agree with factually), but you defend this progressive-pleading by saying that it's "written for the people who follow" them!
The thing I think you're missing graymouser is the question: why did they address progressives rather than union leaders? The answer is not that it's more possible to move these progressives than it is the union leaders (which is only true when you don't consider the interaction with the union base), but precisely because these progressives don't have an organized class base the progressives can take criticism much easier because they're not as afraid of being tossed on the street on their ear, but if these signers made their criticisms of the union leaders--who are afraid of being tossed by the ranks onto the street--they would burn the many bridges and links that bind them to them, like example I gave of the ISO. The ISO apparatus doesn't rely financially on union bureaucrat positions, but it's not hard to see that they make big theoretical criticisms of "union bureaucracy" but play footsie with reform slates, "left" bureaucrats, etc. and such a letter would mess that up for them.

Crux

11th December 2010, 23:00

M talking about the CWI in broader formations:

Take the NPA. One of the key questions in the French struggles was the call for an all-out general strike to victory. The NPA played with this demand until the CGT stopped. Did the CWI say, "Look, this is what we need to do. The CGT leadership is an obstacle. The NPA leadership is not clearly explaining that the CGT leadership is an obstacle and so we must tell that truth to the workers." Not that I could see. All it would take is one link to disprove me, otherwise, you're part of the problem.

"But can the movement last without a leadership from amongst the strikers themselves, co-ordinating the struggle at all levels, and without a clear strategy for victory, on the pensions issue and on the question of who should run society? A special supplement of Egalite, the paper of Gauche Revolutionnaire (CWI in France) spelled out the approach that is needed – one of a fight to the finish, a real general strike and the linking up of the coordination committees on a local, regional and national level. The fullest of debate and discussion is vital in these bodies - of the concrete steps needed to develop the struggle and also the perspective for socialist change. "
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4625

Lack of leadership

One striking feature of the present movement is the lack of a central leadership, providing clear answers and a strategy to organise the struggle. The national leaderships of the big trade union confederations are stuck in a state of confusion, not really knowing how to proceed in order to manage a ‘soft landing’ of the present mobilisations.
Controlling their troops and bringing an end to the radicalisation wave has become their main concern. The newspaper Le Figaro has quoted Maurice Thorez, general secretary of the French Communist Party during the mass strikes of June 1936: “It is necessary to know how to finish a strike”.
That is the dilemma facing the top officials of the trade union movement. From the start they entertained the hopes that Sarkozy would open negotiations and give some concessions and amendments to the reform, which would allow them to buy a temporary social peace.

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4605

I could probably find you more, and in the internal reports I have received it has also been spelled out clearly. As the other article I posted pointed out we are currently working in opposition to the NPA leadership and their far too weak approach, calling for clearer and more radical tactics all-over.

So maybe you should try looking slightly more the next time before you jump to conclusions. I don't want to derail the thread to become a discussion on France, rather I posted the series of articles to defend our perspective more generally.

Crux

11th December 2010, 23:05

syndicat

11th December 2010, 23:05

While I am critical of WSA, I'm surprised someone in that group would sign it and you would be seemingly uncritical of them signing it, but critical of the statement.

well, i guess I'm not as sectarian as you are.

While I agree with "militancy" and breaking with the Democrats, the whole thrust of the letter is not actually in that direction in my estimation, as I wrote above. I would not want my name associated with such pleading to "progressives." I'm not going to tell my coworkers that "We need Michael Moore! Sign this!" I'll sign--and did sign--a letter to my union president telling him that Iranian trade union leaders are in prision and could use whatever assistance our local could give, especially organizing a protest using our much greater resources. But I'm not signing a letter to washed-up (at best) "leaders" pleading with them to help us, and I wouldn't stand for my organization to be associated with such drivel.

yeah, i would tend to agree with this criticism.

altho i generally tend to agree with Albert & Hahnel on participatory planning, i find that their focus on the alternative is too abstrct and ahistorical and is not tied to any clear strategy. this leads to a lack of clarity about the path. we can see this in their putting hopes in Chavez...as if an authentic socialism could be constructed from above.

Martin Blank

11th December 2010, 23:07

Okay then, let me restate, you are being mechanic and bitter. there is ample evidence throughout history that revolutionary groups can form out not-so-revolutionary or not-so-proletarian formations.

Revolutionary, perhaps, but not revolutionary proletarian. And that's the point. We don't need any more non-worker (or anti-worker!) radical groups. We don't need a new "New Left" that only pushes working people into the arms of reaction because they are just that stupid (or cop agents).

And there is ample evidence that not only purely proletarian groups can pull the working class into motion. And this is the fundamental question here. The path is not dotted and straight-forward.

I agree with you on this. I know that non-proletarian formations can push workers into organizing and acting. In fact, to a large extent, I'm counting on precisely that happening. At the same time, I don't want to have to deal with a big obstacle like this new radical-liberal populist party scooping up most of those workers and dumping them back into the bourgeois order at the time when they are just making that initial break.

You act as if I am advocating another Green party. I am not. And to assume one must liquidate to work inside another political formation is just absurd, that, comrade, is defeatism.

You completely confused and as misrepresented everything I said in that last post.

First, I was responding to graymouser, not you, about the question of having access to this new "third party's" structures. He was saying that this party would have structures that revolutionary workers' organizations could use for its own activity. I disagreed with him.

Second, I never suggested you were advocating another Green Party. Rather, I was pointing out that these radical-liberals wanted little more than a red-tinged Green Party. I figure you would advocate a revolutionary workers' party come out of this amalgam. I just don't think that will happen, based on the historical record of such formations.

Third, and finally, it is neither mechanical nor bitterness nor defeatism to look at the history of such formations and understand what happens to them, and then to take those lessons and apply them to current situations. That's being a communist, not an idealist trying to survive on wishful thinking.

syndicat

11th December 2010, 23:10

But while the union leaders are superficially wedded more closely to the Democratic Party, they're actually responsible to their "followers" and influence them and are influenced by them in a completely different way, and a letter to those union leaders but actually aimed at the union base could shake things up.

well, i don't agree with you here. the labor bureaucracy in the USA is really an entrenched bureaucratic layer. there are ten thousand union officials who make over $100,000 a year. these people don't have the same class interests as the members. they're not really part of the working class.

if you think the tops can be controlled by the members, take a look at what happened to United Healthcare Workers West. the heads of SEIU have spent millions of the workers money to destroy effective unionism in the hospital sector in California....all to maintain their power. they won the election at Kaiser narrowly through overt help from management and through intimidation and lying.

Crux

11th December 2010, 23:25

Revolutionary, perhaps, but not revolutionary proletarian. And that's the point. We don't need any more non-worker (or anti-worker!) radical groups. We don't need a new "New Left" that only pushes working people into the arms of reaction because they are just that stupid (or cop agents).
Then how would you feel about a guy who came out of a radical bourgeois student mileu and for the most part of his life maintained himself as a journalist or by relying on loans from richer friends? He would be immediately shown the door I presume? If you're confused, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) is the guy I am thinking of. Besides, when I said new groups I did not necessarily mean "new groups isolated from the working class" or even "new groups that are petit-bourgeoisie" Which is why I followed it up with my second statement.

I agree with you on this. I know that non-proletarian formations can push workers into organizing and acting. In fact, to a large extent, I'm counting on precisely that happening. At the same time, I don't want to have to deal with a big obstacle like this new radical-liberal populist party scooping up most of those workers and dumping them back into the bourgeois order at the time when they are just making that initial break.First, as has been pointed out they do call for anti-capitalist organizing. Having that in print is rather radical, and certainly a break from the more populist oriented wing of the Dems. As for where it goes from there, we will have to see. I mean you've obviously got a crystal ball here, but I am not so much a believer in psychich abilities. Doesn't your first sentence stand in contradiction to your second?

And, perhaps more to the point, why should we be afraid to intervene when we can?

RedTrackWorker

11th December 2010, 23:40

well, i don't agree with you here. the labor bureaucracy in the USA is really an entrenched bureaucratic layer. there are ten thousand union officials who make over $100,000 a year. these people don't have the same class interests as the members. they're not really part of the working class.

if you think the tops can be controlled by the members, take a look at what happened to United Healthcare Workers West. the heads of SEIU have spent millions of the workers money to destroy effective unionism in the hospital sector in California....all to maintain their power. they won the election at Kaiser narrowly through overt help from management and through intimidation and lying.

I agree with you on this point and didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I meant to say is that the union leaders have a base that could be affected/shaken up by a pointed letter addressed to the leaders laying out a different line of march, but I don't think the "base" of the progressives addressed in this letter will be much affected at all.

RedTrackWorker

11th December 2010, 23:52

A special supplement of Egalite, the paper of Gauche Revolutionnaire (CWI in France) spelled out the approach that is needed – one of a fight to the finish, a real general strike and the linking up of the coordination committees on a local, regional and national level.
(snip)http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4625

I knew the CWI called for a general strike, while being part of a "broad" political party that wasn't calling for a general strike, without even commenting on the fact that that party isn't, and calling for other countries to create such broad parties.
The part of my post you missed was the part of the question, did the CWI say:

The NPA leadership is not clearly explaining that the CGT leadership is an obstacle and so we must tell that truth to the workers.
It was a rushed post and not explained well, but the basic idea should be there: it doesn't mean much to call for something, when you're part of a much bigger group that isn't calling for that and you don't even talk about that contradiction! It's called "having your cake and eating it too"--using the popularity of a bigger group, while "differentiating" yourself at no cost by more-left rhetoric.
Again, if anyone's interested in the method behind these calls like the CWI or now the L5I/WP, see the link in my sig on "No to new reformist parties" (which applies to "anti-capitalist" parties like the NPA, and to the general "third party, anti-cap party" thrust of the letter this thread started about). The working class doesn't need additional organizational obstacles to its victory!

Crux

12th December 2010, 00:28

I knew the CWI called for a general strike, while being part of a "broad" political party that wasn't calling for a general strike, without even commenting on the fact that that party isn't, and calling for other countries to create such broad parties.
The part of my post you missed was the part of the question, did the CWI say:

It was a rushed post and not explained well, but the basic idea should be there: it doesn't mean much to call for something, when you're part of a much bigger group that isn't calling for that and you don't even talk about that contradiction! It's called "having your cake and eating it too"--using the popularity of a bigger group, while "differentiating" yourself at no cost by more-left rhetoric.
Again, if anyone's interested in the method behind these calls like the CWI or now the L5I/WP, see the link in my sig on "No to new reformist parties" (which applies to "anti-capitalist" parties like the NPA, and to the general "third party, anti-cap party" thrust of the letter this thread started about). The working class doesn't need additional organizational obstacles to its victory!
And again, as you have done several times now, you throw out accusations with no basis whatsoever. I am not interested in playing that game.
I skimmed the article you sent, and indeed there is some truth to some organizations trying to tone down their program, as our former comrades in the International Socialist Movement in Scottland did and ultimatly,as we had warned ended up dissolving their organization. The "Scottish Debate" clearly outlines how we differ from that perspective: http://www.marxist.net/scotland/aug2000/CWI/sc2frame.htm?intro.htm
It is a slightly longer read, but given your misconceptions on where we stand I figured you might need it. We, as I showed in the previous articles I linked to, which would also do you good if you read, fight openly for our program inside these organizations and form open factions. This would also be true in relation to any new formations that might spring up in the US. Other than that I found the article about as interesting as I thought I would. Good luck "reforging the Authentic 4th international" and molding revolutionary communist parties out of thin air.

Martin Blank

12th December 2010, 02:31

Then how would you feel about a guy who came out of a radical bourgeois student mileu and for the most part of his life maintained himself as a journalist or by relying on loans from richer friends? He would be immediately shown the door I presume? If you're confused, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) is the guy I am thinking of. Besides, when I said new groups I did not necessarily mean "new groups isolated from the working class" or even "new groups that are petit-bourgeoisie" Which is why I followed it up with my second statement.

I hate to break it to you (well, no, I don't, actually), but this is not the early-to-mid-19th century. The time when society could produce such elements from non-proletarian backgrounds is passed (as even the Old Moor recognized in the 1870s!). The petty bourgeoisie has fundamentally changed; social relations have fundamentally changed. To expect such elements to emerge today is, again, wishful thinking not based on a materialist analysis.

First, as has been pointed out they do call for anti-capitalist organizing. Having that in print is rather radical, and certainly a break from the more populist oriented wing of the Dems. As for where it goes from there, we will have to see. I mean you've obviously got a crystal ball here, but I am not so much a believer in psychich abilities. Doesn't your first sentence stand in contradiction to your second?

What does "anti-capitalist" even mean for these people? I know it doesn't mean communist -- that is, fighting for a society without classes or class antagonisms through the overthrow of capitalist rule and the establishment of a workers' republic. It usually means "Scandanavian socialism", like Sweden or Denmark (i.e., your capitalist society). It might also include a bit of "Bolivarian socialism" à la Venezuela.

And it's not really a break from the Dems at all. I have little doubt that, if this regroupment project fails to do anything by 2012, that most of the signers of the "Open Letter" will campaign and vote for Obama (or whomever else is the Democratic candidate).

Obviously, it's a case of wait and see. Moreover, it's not a crystal ball that I am using here, but a history book. And it's not a matter of being psychic, it's a matter of being sane (as opposed to being insane, which is the case with those who do [or support] the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result each time).

And, perhaps more to the point, why should we be afraid to intervene when we can?

I have no problem with intervening in such a formation, especially if it manages to rope in some militant or radicalizing workers. In that case, intervention is a must. But intervention is not the same as lending support. Lending support means taking a measure of responsibility for the effort, seeing that it succeeds, etc. Since such a "third party" as these elements are proposing would be nothing but an obstacle to the growth and success of the broader revolutionary workers' movement, I see no reason for any self-respecting communist to hope for this potential party's success.

RedTrackWorker

12th December 2010, 02:39

We, as I showed in the previous articles I linked to, which would also do you good if you read, fight openly for our program inside these organizations and form open factions. This would also be true in relation to any new formations that might spring up in the US. Other than that I found the article about as interesting as I thought I would. Good luck "reforging the Authentic 4th international" and molding revolutionary communist parties out of thin air.

Majakovskij's response to my criticisms of the CWI's role in the NPA is the same as Bill Fletcher's response to the letter:

What is striking about the letter is that it fails to acknowledge any criticisms that people like you and i and others have offered of the administration, not to mention criticisms offered prior to the election.
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/a-left-establishment-member-reacts-to-the-open-letter/#comment-51664
Majakovskij says: "Put we fight for our program openly within the NPA!"
Fletcher says: "We fought for our program openly within the Obama movement!"
There is not an exact parallel, as the Democratic Party is a capitalist party, but there is a political lesson: criticism can serve to cover up a political role just as much as it can to clarify the issues involved, and that I think is a parallel dynamic, operating on different levels, between the CWI and other "left" supporters of "new workers/mass/labor/anticap parties" on the one hand and the Obama "left" supporters on the other hand.

graymouser

12th December 2010, 02:45

The fundamental difference between the union leaders and these "progressives" is that of class organization. These pro-Obama so-called progressives have followers based on their politics--i.e. most of the people that follow them follow them because of what they are saying. In other words, them saying something different doesn't necessarily change the course of their followers. So asking them to say something different is just asking for people with certain resources and media exposure to say or to do something.
But while the union leaders are superficially wedded more closely to the Democratic Party, they're actually responsible to their "followers" and influence them and are influenced by them in a completely different way, and a letter to those union leaders but actually aimed at the union base could shake things up. Yet you denounce that idea by saying the union leaders are "religiously committed" to the Democrats (which I agree with factually), but you defend this progressive-pleading by saying that it's "written for the people who follow" them!
The thing I think you're missing graymouser is the question: why did they address progressives rather than union leaders? The answer is not that it's more possible to move these progressives than it is the union leaders (which is only true when you don't consider the interaction with the union base), but precisely because these progressives don't have an organized class base the progressives can take criticism much easier because they're not as afraid of being tossed on the street on their ear, but if these signers made their criticisms of the union leaders--who are afraid of being tossed by the ranks onto the street--they would burn the many bridges and links that bind them to them, like example I gave of the ISO. The ISO apparatus doesn't rely financially on union bureaucrat positions, but it's not hard to see that they make big theoretical criticisms of "union bureaucracy" but play footsie with reform slates, "left" bureaucrats, etc. and such a letter would mess that up for them.
Someone once remarked that people make history but not in the manner of their own choosing. As recently as 2007, the "progressives" could still manage to get a hundred thousand people out to Washington DC for a demonstration against an imperialist war. I don't think street demos are magic or will solve our problems, but the truth is that if we could get some of the major forces who protested Bush's wars to protest Obama's as well, that could be powerful leverage to begin rebuilding, and it would include a far greater degree of independence from the Democrats. The people who follow different pro-Democratic Party forces have the potential to break from that graveyard of social movements and build something capable of fighting back outside of the two capitalist parties.

The labor movement has no such position. For three decades now it has primarily been on the defensive, compromising with the bosses and fighting for its very existence. Given the frontal assault on the remaining bastions of unionism such as municipal workers and teachers, and the fact that most of the limited gains have been in class-collaborationist outfits like SEIU that organize bosses instead of workers, there aren't comparable demands that could successfully be laid at the feet of the union bureaucrats. It would be tremendous if the labor movement turned staunchly against the wars - and I think it would help strategically, to bring them to an end - but this is not currently in the realm of possibility. Ideologically of course we want a fighting labor movement, but when it's not in the cards we cannot simply change that by pretending it is so.

I think this letter does succeed in gauging the immediate moment better than most of its critics here have, even if tactically I find some of it juvenile. There is a possibility, however tenuous, to rip a chunk of dissatisfied self-described progressives away from the Democratic Party. It should be seized and the opportunity used to drive a wedge between them and the Democrats, rather than simply punting on the whole question in favor of writing a fruitless appeal to labor bureaucrats who won't be effected in the least.

Crux

12th December 2010, 02:56

Majakovskij's response to my criticisms of the CWI's role in the NPA is the same as Bill Fletcher's response to the letter:

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/a-left-establishment-member-reacts-to-the-open-letter/#comment-51664
Majakovskij says: "Put we fight for our program openly within the NPA!"
Fletcher says: "We fought for our program openly within the Obama movement!"
There is not an exact parallel, as the Democratic Party is a capitalist party, but there is a political lesson: criticism can serve to cover up a political role just as much as it can to clarify the issues involved, and that I think is a parallel dynamic, operating on different levels, between the CWI and other "left" supporters of "new workers/mass/labor/anticap parties" on the one hand and the Obama "left" supporters on the other hand.
Fuck off. If you can't defend the baseless accusations you make, just shut up. I gave you the facts, you are still operating in the realm of fantasy where I am obviously identical to someone denouncing the very same letter I posted here.

Lucretia

15th December 2010, 18:53

Most important paragraph:

The election of Obama has not galvanized protest movements. To the contrary, it has depressed and undermined them, with the White House playing an active role in the discouragement and suppression of dissent – with disastrous consequences. The almost complete absence of protest from the left has emboldened the most right-wing elements inside and outside of the Obama administration to pursue and act on an ever more extreme agenda.

http://www.counterpunch.org/letter12102010.html

Members of certain "revolutionary" socialist groups should take notice of this observation.

Communist

16th December 2010, 18:13

It's this Obama "lesser of two evils" rubbish that's driven me away from the so-called 'Marxist-Leninist' (:lol:) movement. It's beyond absurd, it's downright anti-communist.

blake 3:17

16th December 2010, 22:34

The Open Letter is important both in the US and abroad -- FUCKING DO SOMETHING -- Time's up! Dude got voted in as a progressive anti war Black politician and he has helped demobilize the grassroots which elected him. Fuck that.

New campaigns of non-violent civil disobedience against the wars of occupation, against evictions and foreclosures, and in defense of public health and education are what we need.

ckaihatsu

17th December 2010, 00:20

I've made excerpts from several of the posts in this thread -- the thing they all have in common is the relation they're describing between a more-revolutionary position, and a more-reformist one.

For whatever it's worth, I created a graphic illustration of this all-too-common situation, attached below....

It's a perfectly good and well-tested method of propaganda (in the sense of spreading ideas, of course) to issue a letter calling for people to denounce their current position. If they do, that's great, but it's usually not the expected result - which is rather to expose the people who you are ostensibly writing to as the frauds that they are. Again, I think this is why comrades here are not "getting it." This letter is precisely such a piece of exposition, and therefore much more effective than simply railing at people like the "Left Establishment." If you can't see that it is mostly written for the people who follow Moore, Solomon, van den Heuvel, Dyson, Ehrenreich, Frank, Hayden, Fletcher, Jackson and their ilk, and not for these figures themselves, then it's gone somewhat over your head.

Eh, no. It's asking for people to protest against the government (they mention examples like France and Greece) and to build a anticapitalist leftwing force independent of the Democrats.

At the same time we have to make sure that how we move forward is beneficial to the revolutionary socialist movement as an independent entity. We can't corral ourselves behind some reformist liberals, because that would be devastating, as history has shown.

Rather, we must maintain an independent position fighting for our political goals. And we have to determine how to advance our goals through these developments.

M talking about the CWI in broader formations:

Take the NPA. One of the key questions in the French struggles was the call for an all-out general strike to victory. The NPA played with this demand until the CGT stopped. Did the CWI say, "Look, this is what we need to do. The CGT leadership is an obstacle. The NPA leadership is not clearly explaining that the CGT leadership is an obstacle and so we must tell that truth to the workers." Not that I could see. All it would take is one link to disprove me, otherwise, you're part of the problem.

[T]he union leaders are "religiously committed" to the Democrats (which I agree with factually), but you defend this progressive-pleading by saying that it's "written for the people who follow" them!

Revolutionary, perhaps, but not revolutionary proletarian. And that's the point. We don't need any more non-worker (or anti-worker!) radical groups. We don't need a new "New Left" that only pushes working people into the arms of reaction because they are just that stupid (or cop agents).

I agree with you on this. I know that non-proletarian formations can push workers into organizing and acting. In fact, to a large extent, I'm counting on precisely that happening. At the same time, I don't want to have to deal with a big obstacle like this new radical-liberal populist party scooping up most of those workers and dumping them back into the bourgeois order at the time when they are just making that initial break.

Since such a "third party" as these elements are proposing would be nothing but an obstacle to the growth and success of the broader revolutionary workers' movement, I see no reason for any self-respecting communist to hope for this potential party's success.

For three decades now [the labor movement] has primarily been on the defensive, compromising with the bosses and fighting for its very existence.

Leftism -- Want, Get

http://postimage.org/image/pgx9pah0/

RedTrackWorker

17th December 2010, 02:08

I made the mistake in this thread of getting into a verbal sparring without properly explaining myself. I think Majakovskij doesn't understand my point because he can't, but I didn't do a good job of explaining it to people that could understand. Graymouser's latest post is a good taking off point.

Someone once remarked that people make history but not in the manner of their own choosing. As recently as 2007, the "progressives" could still manage to get a hundred thousand people out to Washington DC for a demonstration against an imperialist war. I don't think street demos are magic or will solve our problems, but the truth is that if we could get some of the major forces who protested Bush's wars to protest Obama's as well, that could be powerful leverage to begin rebuilding, and it would include a far greater degree of independence from the Democrats. The people who follow different pro-Democratic Party forces have the potential to break from that graveyard of social movements and build something capable of fighting back outside of the two capitalist parties.

The labor movement has no such position. For three decades now it has primarily been on the defensive, compromising with the bosses and fighting for its very existence. Given the frontal assault on the remaining bastions of unionism such as municipal workers and teachers, and the fact that most of the limited gains have been in class-collaborationist outfits like SEIU that organize bosses instead of workers, there aren't comparable demands that could successfully be laid at the feet of the union bureaucrats. It would be tremendous if the labor movement turned staunchly against the wars - and I think it would help strategically, to bring them to an end - but this is not currently in the realm of possibility. Ideologically of course we want a fighting labor movement, but when it's not in the cards we cannot simply change that by pretending it is so.

I think this letter does succeed in gauging the immediate moment better than most of its critics here have, even if tactically I find some of it juvenile. There is a possibility, however tenuous, to rip a chunk of dissatisfied self-described progressives away from the Democratic Party. It should be seized and the opportunity used to drive a wedge between them and the Democrats, rather than simply punting on the whole question in favor of writing a fruitless appeal to labor bureaucrats who won't be effected in the least.

First, I'll point out graymouser ducks the contradiction in his argument that I already pointed out: he defends the letter in question by saying it's really aimed at their followers, but critiques my point by saying "labor bureaucrats who won't be effected in the least," i.e. ignoring their "followers."
Second, ignoring this difference is the key problem with his argument and points to a cynical adaptation to what is, rather than a strategy for changing it. If you can place demands on Michael Moore and Bill Fletcher, but not Samuelsen or Trumka, then we have a serious problem. Right now, Cuomo is soon to become governor in NY state. NYC is the most union dense city in the country last I checked. Cuomo has announced major attacks on workers' job and living standards and social services. The unions are clearly not doing anything about it, yet their members would clearly be concerned, if informed and saw an avenue for fighting back. Public sector workers are largely Black, Latino and many are women. The attacks on social services also hurt the already-oppressed layers of society the most. If an appeal for a fightback cannot even be posed propagandistically to these layers of society by a letter pointing out the complicity of their leaders in their plight, I fail to see how one thinks a revolution is even possible in this country.
I think perhaps graymouser you're letting the "actual" obscure the "potential." Yes, the labor movement has been in retreat for decades. Yes, "progressives" had more to do with bringing out masses for anti-war protests. But to formally extrapolate from those two points means one's thinking is confined to the very bounds the political perfidy of the union bureaucracy has made seem like the real bounds of class struggle in this country. The 2005 transit strike had more potential to upset this country's occupation of Iraq than the biggest D.C. march. The fact that it only appeared and appears on a small blip on what most people think is possible, where appealing to Moore and Fletcher appears "reasonable," reflects, in my opinion, not the actual relationships of class forces but the political adaptation to a period of defeats by the "left."