Nuvem
9th February 2011, 17:16
Yesterday I received my copy of the Socialist for 2011. I was happy to get it, as it's only the second I have gotten thus far, and the previous one from November was almost entirely an electoral affair, and thus I was hardly interested. I was optimistic, since this issue is entitled "Socialism for the 21st Century"- it sounds like an interesting issue....then I opened it up, and immediately I was discouraged.
It begins by mentioning President Hugo Chavez' announcement of creating a "Socialism for the 21st century", and in the first paragraph expands to proclaim that Socialists need to assess the past, take what is positive, and leave behind what is negative. So far, so good. Then the second paragraph begins, and in one short paragraph makes me question my very membership in the party. I quote with notations of my own,
At the start of the new century, democratic socialists had good reason to be optimistic. Most of the failed socialist experiments of the 20th century had been swept away by a combination of their own undemocratic inefficiencies, pressure from the capitalist world and internal democracy movements (Suggesting that capitalism is in any way democratic?). Plus, a new anti-globalization movement was brimming with possibilities for future transformations beyond capitalism (Originally a conservative movement, unless he is referring to the EZLN and other southern resistance groups.). These two optimistic trends would not last long- swept away by the 9/11 induced terror state and the continuing penetration of neoliberalism into the everyday lays of billions across the globe.
Only two trends are here presented, one of which being a growing resistance to neoliberalism, and the first being the dissolution of the former Communist world, of the USSR and the Bloc (China and southeast Asian nations having already abandoned a Socialist path).
Before I continue, I would like to state that I do not wish to debate the merit or value of the fall of the USSR and the Bloc. I support both as degenerated worker's states against Imperialism, and will until the day I die. You will not convince me otherwise on the internet.
That being said, I must ask other SPUSA members if this is the general sentiment within the party. In various pamphlets and statements, I detected a certain degree of condemnation of the former Communist world, but I had concluded that to a certain degree it was for PR and to another it was because, frankly, the former Communist world was severely flawed and there are many elements best re-imagined. However, this piece was written by the editor of the paper and co-chair of the party, Billy Wharton- an important man and one of the primary leaders of the party. I won't hit you all with too much of a wall of text by quoting more of the paper's content, but the sentiments above are not de-contextualized and continue in a more or less pervasive fashion for the remainder of the issue, which speaks of "grassroots" approach to Socialism (I don't know what's much more grassroots than massive popular revolution sweeping across Russia, China, Cuba, etc.) and carries a very Council Communist kind of tone. Immediately after this condemnation of the former Communist world, we are treated to...more electoral politics!
One great example of how this new socialism built for the 21st century could be spread from a mass platform came recently in Ohio. Here, veteran labor activist Dan LeBotz took up the call to be the Socialist Party USA candidate for Senate, in a state that hadn't seen a socialist on the ballot in decades.
Socialism, in the 21st century, will be spread via electoral politics! What a novel dose of bourgeois social-democracy! I suppose this will naturally be followed by a shocking outcome, an unexpected victory, mass resistance to capitalism in Ohio, perhaps formations of councils of workers, farmers, soldiers and students?
On Election Day, 26,450 people voted for socialism and laid the basis for future electoral challenges organized around the ideas of grassroots democracy, worker's power and political and social freedom. Socialism, at least for a brief moment in Ohio, was back on the political map.
Capital! In a state of 11.5 million and an average voter turnout of 4.5 million, Podunk Ohio voted for candidate Dan LeBotz, who lost the election to the usual Bourgeois suspects, and the struggle was over. Is this to be the basis for the SPUSA's connection to the struggle? Failed political skirmishes against the monopoly on the national Legislature held by the two primary Bourgeois parties? A few independents have leaked in, including one social democrat, Bernie Sanders, who ran independent of any party-and he is utterly ineffective, voting with the Democratic Party in the vast majority of decisions.
What good will one or two more social democrats in the Senate or House do? No less than a full majority coupled with a socialist president could yield any tangible legislative results, and if this became the case the Bourgeois parties would immediately call out the National Guard and perhaps even the Army proper to overthrow the social democratic Legislature and progressive president; more likely still that the culprits would be assassinated long before they could even take their seats, if the Bourgeoisie in America truly detected a threat to their interests. If it sounds absurd to you, you need look no further than Allende's Chile for answers. The revolution will not be brought about by ballots!
Ranting against Mr. Wharton's article aside, I will finally pose my question to SPUSA members: is Mr. Wharton's position the prevailing party line? While I am fully aware that the SPUSA is a multi-tendency organization, I would prefer to be active in a party the majority of which I can find consensus with so that there is not a conflict of interests. If the majority of the SPUSA is social democratic, Council Communist or State Capitalist Theorist, then I thoroughly do not belong with the party, and should resign my membership immediately and find myself in new company.
It begins by mentioning President Hugo Chavez' announcement of creating a "Socialism for the 21st century", and in the first paragraph expands to proclaim that Socialists need to assess the past, take what is positive, and leave behind what is negative. So far, so good. Then the second paragraph begins, and in one short paragraph makes me question my very membership in the party. I quote with notations of my own,
At the start of the new century, democratic socialists had good reason to be optimistic. Most of the failed socialist experiments of the 20th century had been swept away by a combination of their own undemocratic inefficiencies, pressure from the capitalist world and internal democracy movements (Suggesting that capitalism is in any way democratic?). Plus, a new anti-globalization movement was brimming with possibilities for future transformations beyond capitalism (Originally a conservative movement, unless he is referring to the EZLN and other southern resistance groups.). These two optimistic trends would not last long- swept away by the 9/11 induced terror state and the continuing penetration of neoliberalism into the everyday lays of billions across the globe.
Only two trends are here presented, one of which being a growing resistance to neoliberalism, and the first being the dissolution of the former Communist world, of the USSR and the Bloc (China and southeast Asian nations having already abandoned a Socialist path).
Before I continue, I would like to state that I do not wish to debate the merit or value of the fall of the USSR and the Bloc. I support both as degenerated worker's states against Imperialism, and will until the day I die. You will not convince me otherwise on the internet.
That being said, I must ask other SPUSA members if this is the general sentiment within the party. In various pamphlets and statements, I detected a certain degree of condemnation of the former Communist world, but I had concluded that to a certain degree it was for PR and to another it was because, frankly, the former Communist world was severely flawed and there are many elements best re-imagined. However, this piece was written by the editor of the paper and co-chair of the party, Billy Wharton- an important man and one of the primary leaders of the party. I won't hit you all with too much of a wall of text by quoting more of the paper's content, but the sentiments above are not de-contextualized and continue in a more or less pervasive fashion for the remainder of the issue, which speaks of "grassroots" approach to Socialism (I don't know what's much more grassroots than massive popular revolution sweeping across Russia, China, Cuba, etc.) and carries a very Council Communist kind of tone. Immediately after this condemnation of the former Communist world, we are treated to...more electoral politics!
One great example of how this new socialism built for the 21st century could be spread from a mass platform came recently in Ohio. Here, veteran labor activist Dan LeBotz took up the call to be the Socialist Party USA candidate for Senate, in a state that hadn't seen a socialist on the ballot in decades.
Socialism, in the 21st century, will be spread via electoral politics! What a novel dose of bourgeois social-democracy! I suppose this will naturally be followed by a shocking outcome, an unexpected victory, mass resistance to capitalism in Ohio, perhaps formations of councils of workers, farmers, soldiers and students?
On Election Day, 26,450 people voted for socialism and laid the basis for future electoral challenges organized around the ideas of grassroots democracy, worker's power and political and social freedom. Socialism, at least for a brief moment in Ohio, was back on the political map.
Capital! In a state of 11.5 million and an average voter turnout of 4.5 million, Podunk Ohio voted for candidate Dan LeBotz, who lost the election to the usual Bourgeois suspects, and the struggle was over. Is this to be the basis for the SPUSA's connection to the struggle? Failed political skirmishes against the monopoly on the national Legislature held by the two primary Bourgeois parties? A few independents have leaked in, including one social democrat, Bernie Sanders, who ran independent of any party-and he is utterly ineffective, voting with the Democratic Party in the vast majority of decisions.
What good will one or two more social democrats in the Senate or House do? No less than a full majority coupled with a socialist president could yield any tangible legislative results, and if this became the case the Bourgeois parties would immediately call out the National Guard and perhaps even the Army proper to overthrow the social democratic Legislature and progressive president; more likely still that the culprits would be assassinated long before they could even take their seats, if the Bourgeoisie in America truly detected a threat to their interests. If it sounds absurd to you, you need look no further than Allende's Chile for answers. The revolution will not be brought about by ballots!
Ranting against Mr. Wharton's article aside, I will finally pose my question to SPUSA members: is Mr. Wharton's position the prevailing party line? While I am fully aware that the SPUSA is a multi-tendency organization, I would prefer to be active in a party the majority of which I can find consensus with so that there is not a conflict of interests. If the majority of the SPUSA is social democratic, Council Communist or State Capitalist Theorist, then I thoroughly do not belong with the party, and should resign my membership immediately and find myself in new company.