Question About World Can't Wait Campaign

[oujiQualm]

First I should say that I am not a member of RCP. Nor do I have anything particularly against it.

My question is why did the RCP maintin an Anti-Bush ubrella strategy throughtout the last few years. Most of their leafltets and lit seem to be about building a wide common front strategy AND WITH VIRTUALLY NOT BASHING OF THE CORPORATE DEMOCRATS.

Now, Im sure they did crtique the dems in their groups, but I still think it was bad strategy.

Why?

I can remember when very few people would have agreed with the following
statement "the democrats and Republicans have more in common than they have differences between them"

Now, here's the paradox.

I think that this argument could get more agreement today than at any time in US history, including even the 1880s. Notice I say COULD GET.

That would be if SOME GROUP WERE VISIBLY ORGANIZING AROUND THE DEMOCRATS AS ENABLERS THEME. But there is nobody doing this! There is nobody bashing the democrats except on sites for leftists where the argument is cut off from the public sphere.

Why cant we agree that you strike -- as in Judo-- where the break is more likely to occur.

In fact I would argue that the Anti-bush sentiment is so large but also amorphous as to almost ironically have turned into Bushs Life preserver. For the last three years it turned into a joke how unpopular Bush was and we have let the sheep just be comfortable with the illusion that these Corporate Rahm emanuel Democrats will change anything at all.

There was never any better time to attack the Democrats as Enabling Bendovercrats. Instead the RCP seems to have adopted a United Front strategy AT PRECISELY THE WRONG TIME. I might add that It is perhaps wrong to only confine this critique to RCp . I have been amazed that other gorups have not been bashing the dems OUTSIDE OF LEFT FORUMS WHERE THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE CAN HEAR WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY.

[Edgar]

I'm guessing it probably would have been a lot harder to even organize and put together the World Can't Wait campaign if the RCP had insisted that WCW stick to an anti-Democrat line; the social-democratic and liberal reformist groups in WCW would have never gone along with that and would have pulled out, thus resulting in WCW being a transparent front group for the RCP, which I don't think it really was.

You're right that the public's disatisfaction and anger at the two parties has scarcely been greater than it is now.

[oujiQualm]

And yet nobody is calling out the dems where people can read and hear it!! SO many on the left only post on left-sites. I think this is a huge mistake. That why I post on big newspaper sites and urge others to do so also.

You cannot just give away the very last part of the public sphere and leave it to only republicans and bendovercrats. Yet this is what so many leftists do. the Iron is hot and it seems like nobody is striking!

[bayano]

hahaha, firstly, posting on sites aint gonna make the revolution. it doesnt matter which sites you post on in the longrun. youre still missing most of the population.

but i agree with you. WCW and other allegedly radical fronts and popular organizations made real mistakes with their Bash Bush strategies, which still inexplicably continue right now at the end of the Bush administration. its like they thought theyd always have him to smack around as an enemy, and some of them actually started to believe their most overblown rhetoric that Bush and Cheney were fascists who were gonna somehow hold onto power past the eight year mark. its silly, and not far at all from the 9/11Truth wackos.

WCW made a lot of missteps, and its inception was arguably the result of another RCP misstep: the collapse of NION. as if World Can't Wait would bring some kind of insurrectionary urgency to the liberals and radicals who might come to it. and since, the RCP moved heavily from more organizing and movement building to constantly pushing the Party on everyone, in their fronts or not. another misstep as well as setback for the movement.

Bush is lameduck. has been since 2006. his name shoulda been banned from radical protest language, but it wasnt. it remained in the forefront. so the cult of personality around Obama was arguably helped by radical groups that didnt get that.

[Martin Blank]

First I should say that I am not a member of RCP. Nor do I have anything particularly against it.

My question is why did the RCP maintain an Anti-Bush umbrella strategy throughout the last few years. Most of their leaflets and lit seem to be about building a wide common front strategy AND WITH VIRTUALLY NOT BASHING OF THE CORPORATE DEMOCRATS.

Now, I'm sure they did critique the Dems in their groups, but I still think it was bad strategy.

Why?

The reason is simple: Perhaps the largest component of the WCW campaign these days, and one of the largest bases of organizing the coalition has, is among the Progressive Democrats of America. PDA, for those who don't know, is a coalition of leftie Democrats who are big on Dennis Kucinich and other quasi-social-democratic elements in the party (e.g., John Conyers). Some bourgeois-socialist groups like Democratic Socialists of America and the Social Democratic Party are also in PDA, and it functions as a semi-official offshoot of the Progressive Caucus in Congress.


I can remember when very few people would have agreed with the following statement "the democrats and Republicans have more in common than they have differences between them"

Now, here's the paradox.

I think that this argument could get more agreement today than at any time in US history, including even the 1880s. Notice I say COULD GET.

That would be if SOME GROUP WERE VISIBLY ORGANIZING AROUND THE DEMOCRATS AS ENABLERS THEME. But there is nobody doing this! There is nobody bashing the democrats except on sites for leftists where the argument is cut off from the public sphere.

In a sense, you're right. The problem is twofold. On the one hand, the opportunist elements see that they cannot get "the numbers" for their protests and teach-ins and what-not unless they moderate their language so that liberals and leftie Dems will come to their events. So attacks on the Bush-Pelosi regime become simply attacks on the Bush regime, and the enabling role of the Democratic Party is reserved for private discussions.

On the other hand, for those who actually do raise the enabling role of the Democrats (something we as the Communist League do, in our paper and when talking with fellow workers), there are few areas where we can do this free from interference.

For example, the recent Labor Day parade and march in Detroit would have been a great arena to do this ... except that, because Barack Obama decided he was going to show up and tell us all how McCain and Bush really care about the people of Louisiana, the place was swamped with petty-bourgeois elements that came in from all corners to listen to him. The working-class element was overwhelmed by managers, professionals and bureaucrats, and most of them went home immediately after the march arrived downtown. Our members tried to interact with the workers there, but either our brothers and sisters just wanted to get out of the area, or every time we struck up a conversation, some Obamista decided to get all offended and start shouting at us, and the discussion would be derailed. (And, of course, seeing as how we were one of only a couple of groups that actually sought to take on the Dems, we were simply drowned out.)


Why cant we agree that you strike -- as in Judo-- where the break is more likely to occur.

In fact I would argue that the Anti-bush sentiment is so large but also amorphous as to almost ironically have turned into Bush's Life preserver. For the last three years it turned into a joke how unpopular Bush was and we have let the sheep just be comfortable with the illusion that these Corporate Rahm Emanuel Democrats will change anything at all.

Agreed, again. See above for my opinion as to why this is happening.


There was never any better time to attack the Democrats as Enabling Bendovercrats. Instead the RCP seems to have adopted a United Front strategy AT PRECISELY THE WRONG TIME. I might add that It is perhaps wrong to only confine this critique to RCP. I have been amazed that other groups have not been bashing the Dems OUTSIDE OF LEFT FORUMS WHERE THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE CAN HEAR WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY.

Well, let's be more precise here. What the RCP has adopted is not a United Front strategy, but what the "official Communists" have historically called a People's Front (or People's United Front, or Popular Front) strategy. The difference is that the latter is a cross-class alliance at all levels, including leadership, with a section of the capitalists and the petty bourgeoisie. It is not the same as a Workers' United Front, as proposed at the III Congress of the Communist International in 1921.

That said, it should not be surprising that WCW has went this way, or that the RCP allowed it to go this way. Never underestimate the power of an opportunist appetite. The RCP got drunk off their initial success and did next to nothing to deal with the political contradictions that were developing. They were thrilled to have the numbers coming out to their events, and the associated boosts in exposure, and newspaper and literature sales. Their demonstrations were no longer dozens (at best), but hundreds and sometimes thousands (mainly national protests in D.C.). They were able to get personalities to sign on and donate to WCW -- and not just the ones that will sign any endorsement for a "progressive cause" that comes across their desk, like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn.

But they had no vision of where they wanted to take this. That was their Achilles Heel. They had no real, concrete answer to the question of what should happen if Bush was driven out. The best they could offer was a sack of platitudes ... and some witty but uninspired commentary from Bob Avakian. (Let's face it, Bob's "new synthesis" is old news to anyone who is not a "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist". The transition from capitalism to communism requires critical opinions and ideas to be heard. Really?! You think?!)

In the end, they have become a slightly-more-radical version of United For Peace and Justice, and it is precisely because the RCP could not offer anything substantive for a post-Bush situation ... and PDA could. We participated in WCW initially because we thought it was a good idea, and we tried to offer a political alternative, but our size was a drawback. Again, we were drowned out -- a peril of being a small communist organization.

It's good you want to take this issue on. I look forward to your comments.