Forming a new mass party in the US out of the fragments of the left

[RedSonRising]

How viable do you think this strategy is? A break with the Democrats has to seem as appealing as ever to liberals, progressives, social democrats, and even working class Republicans. The left in the US has for long been a disorganized mess and nothing is going to change that but the widespread organization of workers through meaningful real-world campaigns and the popularization of socialist ideas. But, are the existing fragments of the left in the United States enough "material" to consolidate into a new starting point? Do you think a convergence of existing socialist parties, radical unions & organizations, and left student groups could form a new party or coalition that launches the left in a new direction?

This question is far from new or unique, but it's got to be the most important one we can confront right now.

If you think yes, please specify which strategy and organizations lend themselves to this idea.

If not, I'd love to hear an alternative.

[Blake's Baby]

It's not viable. One of the things Lenin was right about was that the age of 'mass parties' is dead.

The working class has its organs for recouping all workers - they're workers' councils.

The revolutionary minorities are going to stay minorities under present conditions, because the ruling ideas in any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class. It's only small groups of workers that come to political consciousness outside of revolutionary periods.

Added to which, most of 'the Left' is awful shit and best avoided.

Sure, revolutionaries need to stay in touch with each, keep discussing with each other and with non-revolutionary workers, and intervening in anything that has any progressive content. But all the dying sects are dying for a reason. At best, they represent the 'high tide' of previous waves of struggle. Most are anything but 'the best'.

If you can make contact with some people whose politics you don't find appalling, then talk to them. But please remember, the 'starting point' is not 'the Left' but 'the working class'. That isn't going away, and class confrontations can be an arena for people to rapidly re-examine their political orientation.

[The Idler]

You're probably better off starting from scratch.

[John Nada]

How viable do you think this strategy is? A break with the Democrats has to seem as appealing as ever to liberals, progressives, social democrats, and even working class Republicans. The left in the US has for long been a disorganized mess and nothing is going to change that but the widespread organization of workers through meaningful real-world campaigns and the popularization of socialist ideas. But, are the existing fragments of the left in the United States enough "material" to consolidate into a new starting point? Do you think a convergence of existing socialist parties, radical unions & organizations, and left student groups could form a new party or coalition that launches the left in a new direction?MO nearly all existing leftist orgs have a flawed understanding of revolution, if it's even on the table for them. And the traditional workers' movement is dominated by opportunistic labor bureaucrats and greatly weakened. Either a qualitative change in the existing orgs or a new ones entirely are needed IMO.

A problem with this regroupment/refoundation/left pole theory of organization(which is what this is know as) is that all these groups have sometimes widely diverging theories on just about everything beside anti-capitalism. How can you merge together one group that thinks the PRC is a workers' state and another that thinks it's social imperialist? One that supports a restrictive conspiratorial party, another small unorganized groups? Or electoralism through the Democratic Party and another focoism? And you also have the ego clash of personalities that dominate current orgs.

Sure, positions on this or that don't preclude working together tactically, but unity for sake of unity and organization building is right opportunism. It's going down to the least common denominator among activists(often drawn from petty-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy, rather than the greater mass of workers), and not what represents the interests of the proletariat. This is every bit as damaging as "left" opportunism, all struggle but no unity.
This question is far from new or unique, but it's got to be the most important one we can confront right now.

If you think yes, please specify which strategy and organizations lend themselves to this idea.Off the top of my head, FRSO and Solidarity. I think they're economistic, tailist, and have no viable strategy for revolution.
If not, I'd love to hear an alternative.I think that Lenin's What is to be Done? (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm) is relevant. I think a lot of what Lenin describes among the early Russian socialists and workers' movement resembles the primativeness of Socialism in the US.

[ComradeAllende]

I doubt there are any "organizations" that can serve as the foundation for a new mass party in the developed world, let alone the United States. The political system of the United States is lukewarm to any third-party prospect, let alone a socialist one. And mass-based parties don't exist in America; neither party has a dedicated cadre of activists and members who provide dues and serve as the organizational framework of the national party. Hell, you don't even have to be a registered party member to vote in some primaries. If a socialist party were to arise in the US, it would have to be a product of either (A) mass-unification of the various sects and parties or (B) a collective project of the weakened labor movement. Neither seem possible for the foreseeable future.

If a mass based party were to form in the US, it would have to emerge from a split within the Democratic Party between the left and right-wing factions (i.e. pro-Sanders Democrats vs Clinton Democrats). Creating a whole new party from scratch would just add another sectarian echo-chamber to the list, and trying to "transform" the Democratic Party into a garden-variety social-democratic organization (let alone a revolutionary party) would fail just like it has for the past century.

[Molotov1848]

I don't think the issue so much lies in the amount of 'leftist' organizations but rather that pretty much none of them are of any value, and as such there is no use in trying to unite them. There's tons of different groups across Europe calling themselves Communist, Socialist, Anarchist or whatever but the nonetheless it doesn't take an expert to recognize there is a much stronger revolutionary tendency among the proletariat in a significant amount of Europe than there is anywhere in America. And I highly doubt Anarchists and Maoists not liking each other is preventing any sort of revolution.

The solution? Well I don't exactly have one straightforward simple solution, but letting all of those social democratic parties and activist playtime larper projects finally breathe their last breathes would be a step in the right direction.

[willowtooth]

You have to kill the Jesus in Russia they were loyal to their czar in America they're only loyal to the tiny infant Jesus, in his golden-fleece diapers, with his tiny, little, fat, balled-up fists

[Raul Castro]

what about just uniting the marxist leninist parties, because in america there is like 10 and uniting them would be a good step forward

[RedSonRising]

Creating a whole new party from scratch would just add another sectarian echo-chamber to the list, and trying to "transform" the Democratic Party into a garden-variety social-democratic organization (let alone a revolutionary party) would fail just like it has for the past century.

I totally agree, and this is the conundrum we're left with. We can't start from scratch and we also can't rely on the egocentric dysfunctional sectarian fragments of the existing "left", nor can we rely on the Democratic party. I'm not sure there are enough pro-Sanders Democrats to make such a split viable, and Sanders himself is putting all his efforts into reforming the Democratic party.

But there are existing organizations that organize around important class issues and offer critiques of capitalism. My question is, which ones are worth putting any effort into connecting? Black Lives Matter? PSL? Socialist Alternative? Former Sanders campaigners? Fight for 15 activists? Can Green Party members and Democrats be pulled away, or perhaps the Green Party convinced to join by taking a more definitive working class character? What about Immigrants' Rights groups?

My frustration is that there are "pockets" of resistance and a widespread desire for change and there is no meaningful organization harnessing it into something transformative.

[willowtooth]

Why dont we talk about reforming the already collapsed republican party. The republican party was founded by Lincoln. It wasn't always a right wing party and isn't defined as one in any terms. It's largely a product of the southern strategy and the civil rights act. Even Trump doesn't joke about the civil rights act or bringing back segregation. Trump himself is barely a republican, the people who voted for him were completely against the republican party and voted for trump because of that. What I dont see in Trump is a massive lambasting of socialism and the communists. Russian fear mongering is actually being done this time around by the democrats. Only a few years ago did we see obama being accused of secretly being in league with commie putin and the muslim brotherhood to bla blah whatever they were babbling about on FOX news. Now they are praising putin and actually siding with assad. Of course this is lacking in principle, fickle and can change with the wind but it shows how unscrupulous fickle ideology-free the republican party currently is. The democrats rejected even bernie sanders, almost whole heartedly so why the hell are they all of a sudden our last great hope for some kind of vanguard party why are the democrats always the ones people talk about "pulling to the left" and making into some kind of socialist vanguard party?

Where are all these left wing parties? The cities, but why? Why not takeover the almost endless amount of rural counties and district across america that actually mine the coal, grow the food, and cut down tress rather than the cities? There are small towns across america that are entirely made up of the employees of one single factory or mine, unionizing those workers, (who would normally vote republican) would create a 3rd party alternative in deep red territory where most elections go uncontested.

[ComradeAllende]

But there are existing organizations that organize around important class issues and offer critiques of capitalism. My question is, which ones are worth putting any effort into connecting? Black Lives Matter? PSL? Socialist Alternative? Former Sanders campaigners? Fight for 15 activists? Can Green Party members and Democrats be pulled away, or perhaps the Green Party convinced to join by taking a more definitive working class character? What about Immigrants' Rights groups?

I doubt the Green Party could become a vehicle for revolutionary socialism; everybody thinks they're a bunch of young hipsters and aging hippies (bourgeois socialism at its finest). Your best bet would be cobbling together some coalition of Sanders campaigners, Fight for 15 activists, and the Socialist Alternative. You won't get the working class, but you'll at least have an activist base that won't turn them off completely (I only say that because BLM and immigration rights groups have a bad rep with poor and working class whites).


My frustration is that there are "pockets" of resistance and a widespread desire for change and there is no meaningful organization harnessing it into something transformative.

Welcome to the End of History, pal. We're stuck with capitalism and everybody's miserable (other than the fat cats).

[criticalrealist]

IMO, it is better to find an active revolutionary movement you agree with. Then work hard with them.

[TomLeftist]

Hi, great question. I wish that the leaders of most radical leftist political parties in USA, would get their act together, and build a large front for all the fragments of the left like you said, joined together into 1 single organization, 1 party, 1 front and present an alternative political program toward the traditional political parties of the system (The Democrat Party and The Republican Party). but the problem I see is that there are too many different kinds of doctrines and theories, on how to overthrow the capitalist dictatorship we've had in USA since the 4th of July of 1776, and to replace it with a worker's government, a proletarian dictatorship. I don't have special mental powers, to learn what is going on in the brains of the leaders of most radical leftist organizations of the country (The Workers world party, the green party, socialist alternative, revolutionary communist party etc). But i suspect, I guess from my own point of view, that I think that each leader, each administrator of the radical leftist parties, think that their own tendency is the right way on how to overthrow the capitalist system and replace it with socialism.

I think that it is almost impossible to join all the leftist movements into 1 single movement. Even if that single movement is today more necessary than ever to save about 50 million americans or even more from death, (because of zero health care access) and millions more from hunger, disease, pain and poverty.

The pride of humans is too great, too powerful and the excess of pride, lack of humility, lack of putting away the ideological purity (in most radical leftist organizations) in order to prevent the neocons neoliberals who are in favor of zero food-stamps and zero free medical care of both Democrats and Republicans. Is I think one of the main factors of why the left of the USA has failed to save poor people from death and pain

I think that only humility, love and less hatred within the whole left can lead to the destruction of the capitalist dictatorship and its replacement with a proletarian dictatorship

I hope we can create this single leftist party as soon as possible. Because 100 million americans, or even 200 million americans need socialism not tomorrow, not in 2020. But today right now, today in this very moment as soon as possible (ASAP) !!

[TomLeftist]

I don't understand why it is so hard for people, to change from right-wingers to left-wingers. Or from social-democrat to ultra-leftist marxist. I used to support Donald Trump in this campaign because I thought he was an anti-war progressive reformist.

And after I read an article about how Donald Trump will privatize and close all public schools, privatize the medicare, medicaid, and food-stamps program (Destroy all those programs which would lead to the mass-murder of millions of americans)

But i've noticed that it is very hard foir people to quit supporting a specific politician even if they find out that that politician will mass-murder, will commit a genocide as a result of the privatization of medicare, medicaid, food-stamps and other programs that keep people alive. I am pro-people, pro-life, anti-death. That's why I've quit supporting both parties cold-turkey. Because both parties are pro-death

[TomLeftist]

Will: I love your idea. But it is very hard to transform the mindset of people. If ultra-leftists, communists join the current republican party and spend lots of energies trying to turn that party into a communist party. Those ultra-leftists might even face death-threats, verbal and physical violence, bullying by the current republican party owners. I think that's spending too much energies and I think that it would almost be an impossible task to preach marxism, communism in a party of people who are very very very far to the right-wing. And who are not even evidence-based. You cannot reason with these people, if you try to reason with them showing them statistics about for example how state-capitalism with welfare services in Venezuela (Lowered poverty levels from 70% to 24%) and how even state-capitalism is a lot better than free market capitalism. They will even kill you

[ComradeAllende]

Where are all these left wing parties? The cities, but why? Why not takeover the almost endless amount of rural counties and district across america that actually mine the coal, grow the food, and cut down tress rather than the cities? There are small towns across america that are entirely made up of the employees of one single factory or mine, unionizing those workers, (who would normally vote republican) would create a 3rd party alternative in deep red territory where most elections go uncontested.

Over 80% of the population lives in the cities. Plus the older radical movements (the IWW, the Socialist Party, CPUSA, etc) all had main areas of support in the industrialized cities, where they attracted a host of radical-minded working class immigrants. And there's the reality that turning urban Democrats into socialists has been our modus operandi since the Popular Front. Its easier to steal the posh members of a major "left-leaning" party than start at square one in the red states.

But more generally, the problem with "reforming" the Republican party is the same problem that afflicts the broader Left today; namely, the alienation of the working class from anything even remotely leftist. Now I'm not saying that the working class ain't the agent of revolution, quite the opposite. But ever since the 1930s, the radical left has had a hard time attracting working-class individuals into a major mass-based movement. The social-democratic flavor of the New Deal and the specter of Stalinism basically turned workers off to the radical promises of these fringe groups. The rise of identity politics and its neoliberal contours has only made things worse; AFL-type unions can't even get half their members to vote Democrat. The Democratic Party (and the left as a whole) has lost touch with the working classes of all races, the former having made the decision to replace popular revolutionary politics with a condescending upper-middle class technocracy that breathes nothing but disdain towards anyone without a college degree, even if they're lifetime Democrats and members of the UAW. And if the Democrats and their spineless cronies in the labor movement can't appeal to working people, what chance do we have? Shit, most of my personal friends (who are college-educated upper-middle class liberals and libertarians) still think I'm a crypto-Stalinist even though I've denounced Stalin and openly talked about my skeptical (though overall sympathetic) views towards Lenin. The modern Left is mostly composed of annoying bourgeois socialists and old Sixties-era sectarians, neither of whom have a clear path into the hearts and minds of working-class folks in Middle America.

[TomLeftist]

Allende: What a great comment of yours right on the point. About how the social-democratic left has been taking over as the only leftist option and also we have to add that the social-democrat left organizations (Democracy Now, Thom Hartmann, Free Speech TV, Berny Sanders etc) have a lot more economic power than the ultra marxist left



Over 80% of the population lives in the cities. Plus the older radical movements (the IWW, the Socialist Party, CPUSA, etc) all had main areas of support in the industrialized cities, where they attracted a host of radical-minded working class immigrants. And there's the reality that turning urban Democrats into socialists has been our modus operandi since the Popular Front. Its easier to steal the posh members of a major "left-leaning" party than start at square one in the red states.

But more generally, the problem with "reforming" the Republican party is the same problem that afflicts the broader Left today; namely, the alienation of the working class from anything even remotely leftist. Now I'm not saying that the working class ain't the agent of revolution, quite the opposite. But ever since the 1930s, the radical left has had a hard time attracting working-class individuals into a major mass-based movement. The social-democratic flavor of the New Deal and the specter of Stalinism basically turned workers off to the radical promises of these fringe groups. The rise of identity politics and its neoliberal contours has only made things worse; AFL-type unions can't even get half their members to vote Democrat. The Democratic Party (and the left as a whole) has lost touch with the working classes of all races, the former having made the decision to replace popular revolutionary politics with a condescending upper-middle class technocracy that breathes nothing but disdain towards anyone without a college degree, even if they're lifetime Democrats and members of the UAW. And if the Democrats and their spineless cronies in the labor movement can't appeal to working people, what chance do we have? Shit, most of my personal friends (who are college-educated upper-middle class liberals and libertarians) still think I'm a crypto-Stalinist even though I've denounced Stalin and openly talked about my skeptical (though overall sympathetic) views towards Lenin. The modern Left is mostly composed of annoying bourgeois socialists and old Sixties-era sectarians, neither of whom have a clear path into the hearts and minds of working-class folks in Middle America.

[TomLeftist]

Comrade Allende: And another thing we have to add is that the social-democrat left is very anti-freedom of speech, very dictatorial, very oppressive, tyrannical, abusive, un-ethical against radical leftists. I have seen Thom Hartmann getting real angry, offending, insulting radical leftists who call his show to critisize Hillary Clinton. The social-democrat left is also immoralist. A guy called The Thom Hartmann show the other day and he said that he didn't like Hillary Clinton because of the corruption scandals of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton being involved in the Barrick Gold mine corporation. And Thom Hartmann said that politics is evil and that he (Thom Hartmann) supports the evil of Hillary and Bill. He even defends some millionaires like George Soros.

This people are crazy they are not loyal to truths at all. I get so angry against Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez and Thom Hartmann because they have media power, and they can lie to their own fans and getting awayy with it. I wish there would come a day when the radical left takes over and crushes the hegemony of Thom Hartmann, Democracy Now and the center-left. They are so in your face elitists. Amy Goodman even sells books for 200 dollars in their fund raising scam. Who the of the oppressed has 200 or even 1000 dollars to donate to those liars Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, Free Speech TV



Over 80% of the population lives in the cities. Plus the older radical movements (the IWW, the Socialist Party, CPUSA, etc) all had main areas of support in the industrialized cities, where they attracted a host of radical-minded working class immigrants. And there's the reality that turning urban Democrats into socialists has been our modus operandi since the Popular Front. Its easier to steal the posh members of a major "left-leaning" party than start at square one in the red states.

But more generally, the problem with "reforming" the Republican party is the same problem that afflicts the broader Left today; namely, the alienation of the working class from anything even remotely leftist. Now I'm not saying that the working class ain't the agent of revolution, quite the opposite. But ever since the 1930s, the radical left has had a hard time attracting working-class individuals into a major mass-based movement. The social-democratic flavor of the New Deal and the specter of Stalinism basically turned workers off to the radical promises of these fringe groups. The rise of identity politics and its neoliberal contours has only made things worse; AFL-type unions can't even get half their members to vote Democrat. The Democratic Party (and the left as a whole) has lost touch with the working classes of all races, the former having made the decision to replace popular revolutionary politics with a condescending upper-middle class technocracy that breathes nothing but disdain towards anyone without a college degree, even if they're lifetime Democrats and members of the UAW. And if the Democrats and their spineless cronies in the labor movement can't appeal to working people, what chance do we have? Shit, most of my personal friends (who are college-educated upper-middle class liberals and libertarians) still think I'm a crypto-Stalinist even though I've denounced Stalin and openly talked about my skeptical (though overall sympathetic) views towards Lenin. The modern Left is mostly composed of annoying bourgeois socialists and old Sixties-era sectarians, neither of whom have a clear path into the hearts and minds of working-class folks in Middle America.

[Blake's Baby]

what about just uniting the marxist leninist parties, because in america there is like 10 and uniting them would be a good step forward

I disagree, because Marxism-Leninism is poison for the working class. It's a good thing none of those parties are capable of destroying militants and sapping energy on anything more than a tiny/local scale.

When the working class begins to seriously struggle new organisations will rise up. The proletariat will create them because it needs to. Old organisations will either adapt themselves to the new situations or be swept away. When the revolution comes the choices will be simple - with the working class or against it, and the old dross of the failed sects will be found wanting and rejected.

[willowtooth]

Over 80% of the population lives in the cities. Plus the older radical movements (the IWW, the Socialist Party, CPUSA, etc) all had main areas of support in the industrialized cities, where they attracted a host of radical-minded working class immigrants. And there's the reality that turning urban Democrats into socialists has been our modus operandi since the Popular Front. Its easier to steal the posh members of a major "left-leaning" party than start at square one in the red states.

But more generally, the problem with "reforming" the Republican party is the same problem that afflicts the broader Left today; namely, the alienation of the working class from anything even remotely leftist. Now I'm not saying that the working class ain't the agent of revolution, quite the opposite. But ever since the 1930s, the radical left has had a hard time attracting working-class individuals into a major mass-based movement. The social-democratic flavor of the New Deal and the specter of Stalinism basically turned workers off to the radical promises of these fringe groups. The rise of identity politics and its neoliberal contours has only made things worse; AFL-type unions can't even get half their members to vote Democrat. The Democratic Party (and the left as a whole) has lost touch with the working classes of all races, the former having made the decision to replace popular revolutionary politics with a condescending upper-middle class technocracy that breathes nothing but disdain towards anyone without a college degree, even if they're lifetime Democrats and members of the UAW. And if the Democrats and their spineless cronies in the labor movement can't appeal to working people, what chance do we have? Shit, most of my personal friends (who are college-educated upper-middle class liberals and libertarians) still think I'm a crypto-Stalinist even though I've denounced Stalin and openly talked about my skeptical (though overall sympathetic) views towards Lenin. The modern Left is mostly composed of annoying bourgeois socialists and old Sixties-era sectarians, neither of whom have a clear path into the hearts and minds of working-class folks in Middle America.
Poor/middle class right wing americans are 100% on board with socialist polices............ fuck if there is anyone who is up for socialism its the fuckin hillbilly's, look up where the term redneck comes from lol.......... you should try talking to these guys sometime they are all about socialism.

[ComradeAllende]

Poor/middle class right wing americans are 100% on board with socialist polices............ fuck if there is anyone who is up for socialism its the fuckin hillbilly's, look up where the term redneck comes from lol.......... you should try talking to these guys sometime they are all about socialism.
I'm not saying that they don't support socialist policies; I mean hell, half of them wouldn't mind if we carpet-bombed Wall Street. My point is that white workers aren't a fan of the culture of the Left. When I think of the radical Left, I think of Eugene Debs, Rosa Luxembourg, and the UAW. When they think of the radical Left, they see Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, and upper-middle class college students with peace signs and Che T-shirts. Hell, I think this applies to the working class of all races and genders. They like the idea of solidarity and fucking the boss; they don't like whiny upper-middle class college talking down to them and using obscurantist language to sound smart. I think the Left needs to rethink its strategy in gaining popular support; we're stuck with a purist New Left model infected with postmodern shit on "parody" and overly-focused on the culture wars and other bourgeois topics. Given how weak we are, we need to start choosing our words and battles carefully. I mean seriously, not everyone who opposes transgender bathrooms is a bigot; most of them didn't know a damn thing about trans people until the damn issue came up. My father doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, yet he was a staunch Sanders supporter during the primary. It was the same way with fighting Jim Crow; most whites weren't members of the Klan or the White Citizens Council, which means they could be convinced to support civil rights. We on the Left need to stop assuming that everyone who doesn't instantaneously agree with us is a reactionary; most of them just don't know about the issue. Also, when we rely on corporate boycotts to effect change (see North Carolina on transgender bathrooms and Arizona on immigration), we only reinforce the idea that we're a bunch of whiny upper-middle class idiots with no concern about "ordinary people".

BTW, redneck only applies to poor whites in the South (specifically the Gulf states); up in the Rust Belt they tend to be called "white ethnics" or "Reagan Democrats".

[TomLeftist]

Comrade: You are right, not only the majority of white right-wing workers hate communism. But they also hate having a social contact, social bonds with their own street neighbors and have a sort of irrational un-founded mild hatred for their own street neighbors and for other humans of their own class. I think that they love dogs, cats and pets a lot more than other humans. That's why you see lots of pets in America, because of the extreme mysanthropy all over the country. Like a sort of negation to start a brand new relationship in order to talk about food prices, gas prices, etc.

I am not psychiatrist, but who knows if there is a lot of paranoia, fear, fear of humans, fear of relationships, fear of being outside, fear of talking, fear of complaning, fear of everyh thing in most low income people. With this behaviour script being followed by most americans. It will be very very hard to create a united party composed of all the poor people of America united in love and in a single objective (Of destroy the capitalist system)

It is easy to turn into a silent mute person in America, because of the extreme silence and sucking up the pain and problems of most people. They behave like that, like a religion. Like if the official religion of USA is to be quiet all the time



I'm not saying that they don't support socialist policies; I mean hell, half of them wouldn't mind if we carpet-bombed Wall Street. My point is that white workers aren't a fan of the culture of the Left. When I think of the radical Left, I think of Eugene Debs, Rosa Luxembourg, and the UAW. When they think of the radical Left, they see Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, and upper-middle class college students with peace signs and Che T-shirts. Hell, I think this applies to the working class of all races and genders. They like the idea of solidarity and fucking the boss; they don't like whiny upper-middle class college talking down to them and using obscurantist language to sound smart. I think the Left needs to rethink its strategy in gaining popular support; we're stuck with a purist New Left model infected with postmodern shit on "parody" and overly-focused on the culture wars and other bourgeois topics. Given how weak we are, we need to start choosing our words and battles carefully. I mean seriously, not everyone who opposes transgender bathrooms is a bigot; most of them didn't know a damn thing about trans people until the damn issue came up. My father doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, yet he was a staunch Sanders supporter during the primary. It was the same way with fighting Jim Crow; most whites weren't members of the Klan or the White Citizens Council, which means they could be convinced to support civil rights. We on the Left need to stop assuming that everyone who doesn't instantaneously agree with us is a reactionary; most of them just don't know about the issue. Also, when we rely on corporate boycotts to effect change (see North Carolina on transgender bathrooms and Arizona on immigration), we only reinforce the idea that we're a bunch of whiny upper-middle class idiots with no concern about "ordinary people".

BTW, redneck only applies to poor whites in the South (specifically the Gulf states); up in the Rust Belt they tend to be called "white ethnics" or "Reagan Democrats".

[(A)]

Maybe instead of trying to create or reform a political party we should focus our collective effort on Unionism. Unionism has the strong organizational faculty's of a political party that political socialist like but at the same time can be considered libertarian by anarchists. Its easy to see how fighting for the workers today creates a stronger working class tomorrow. Union membership directly relates to wage; active struggle & direct action against capital and the bourgeoisie government. If any existing structure was right for fostering revolutionary politics and fighting fascism/reaction; it would be with the Union.

Edit...
And if you are going to form a new workers party in the west where better to start then the unions. Union organization could easily lead to the formation of a political party.

[TomLeftist]

You are right, there needs to be more unionism. More of a united mentality. I've had bad experiences with most leftist parties in America, like Blake and others in this forum said most leftist parties suck, and they don't seem desperate for an overthrow the capitalist system. It seems to me that the majority of active leaders and active members of most leftist parties of America are doing leftist activism as a hobby, as a pastime and they feel real good at it. You don't see any feeling of a desperate need to overthrow the capitalist system in our near future.

I used to like The Socialist Equality Party of USA, but they also seem too reformists, when I tell them that according to Marx the only way to overthrow the capitalist system is with weapons. They get like a sort of Amy Goodman and Thom Hartmann answer, like a pacifist answer, like a sort of Green Party pacifist, legalist, moralist mentality. I think that most of the "radical" parties of the country USA and of other countries, at the end of the day, they have the same pacifisim and legalist, rational and moralist mentality of the Democratic Party and The Green Party.

And most of us here in this website are in favor of "doing things by the book". And if Marxism says that we should use weapons to overthrow capitalism, we should do it like that. Most radical leftist parties are not even loyal to what Karl Marx, Lenin, Gramsci and other marxists wrote.

We are doomed with lack of unionism like you said, and an excess of pride and egocentrism in most leftist parties



Maybe instead of trying to create or reform a political party we should focus our collective effort on Unionism. Unionism has the strong organizational faculty's of a political party that political socialist like but at the same time can be considered libertarian by anarchists. Its easy to see how fighting for the workers today creates a stronger working class tomorrow. Union membership directly relates to wage; active struggle & direct action against capital and the bourgeoisie government. If any existing structure was right for fostering revolutionary politics and fighting fascism/reaction; it would be with the Union.

[Blake's Baby]

You think political parties suck but think unionism is the answer? Do you know anything abut the AFL/CIO?

[ComradeAllende]

Maybe instead of trying to create or reform a political party we should focus our collective effort on Unionism. Unionism has the strong organizational faculty's of a political party that political socialist like but at the same time can be considered libertarian by anarchists. Its easy to see how fighting for the workers today creates a stronger working class tomorrow. Union membership directly relates to wage; active struggle & direct action against capital and the bourgeoisie government. If any existing structure was right for fostering revolutionary politics and fighting fascism/reaction; it would be with the Union.

Reviving the labor movement would be a great step in the right direction, although it may not necessarily benefit the working class in the short run because a significant portion of the labor movement is composed of lower-middle class and middle class public sector workers. Also, reviving the labor movement could easily backfire if the labor bureaucracy isn't reformed; they'll just keep compromising with the capitalists and side with the Democrats. But if you could galvanize enough working-class folks in the Rust Belt and cobble them together with the urban poor, you could create a half-decent labor movement. Hell, you might even be able to unionize the South.


And if you are going to form a new workers party in the west where better to start then the unions. Union organization could easily lead to the formation of a political party.

Problem with that is that the radical left hasn't had a major presence in the labor movement since the 1970s. But a party that centered on the issues of the labor movement would be much more capable of competing in elections; plus union workers would actually have a say in where their dues go to, rather than just seeing the money go to a political party that only pretends to care about their concerns.

[RosaAntonio]

The task at hand in the USA is to unite all who can be united to oppose Trump and Trumpism.