Asoka89
30th December 2008, 21:35
I would be a revolutionary Marxist in Athens today, maybe even in France and a member of Die Linke in Germany. I would be way to the left of Morales and Chavez in Latin America, to the left of Castro and Ortega... but in the United States I am a member of the Democratic Party. I don't often vote Democrat, but this is the field that I believe progressive forces must do battle in. My conclusion has moved towards the current line of the Democratic Socialists of America, although I'm still a bit to the left of the Communist Party USA. Here is my reasoning.
As painful as it is to admit, Michael Harrington and what he affectionately called his fellow American Mensheviks have been right about the prospects for third parties and independent political action. And let's not forget these were people who came out of the Socialist Party and other parties that pursued "independent political action" even during the popular frontist era of the 1930s
An analysis of American Menshevikism:
U.S. parties are not like modern European parties. In Europe, the parties of the Left tend to name leaders on the basis of a political viewpoint and, in any case, only dues-paying members of the party have the right to elect delegates, who in turn select that leader. But in the United States anyone who declares himself or herself a member of a party can, without the payment of dues or the affirmation of a single political principle, help determine the leadership, program, and policies of the party.
The U.S. electoral system — something which socialists cannot change by an act of will — does not allow for a credible form of "independent political action" (as the Trotskyist and Trotskyist-derived portions of the U.S. Left call it). The real options are to support and build the anti-corporate left wing of the Democrats to the point where either (a) the Democrats become dominated by the left or (b) more likely, the "party" splits along ideological and class lines, or to abstain from electoral politics altogether except as a form of protest, which ensures that American workers will not take you seriously.
I wish it was otherwise. Yes, the Democratic Party taken as a whole is a cesspool. But it's a cesspool in which those fighting for a pro-worker politics have no choice but to wade.
It's true that prior to the 20th century, U.S. primaries were machine-driven, closed affairs. With open primaries the parties became more amorphous — which is why industrial unions in the 1930s were able to influence them in a positive way, within limits. The nature of the American electoral system is what it is, and not to be overcome by an act of will. The reason that third parties haven't become major parties once the ballot access rules were changed in the 1890s is not a failure to try. It's been tried, and tried, and tried again. Similarly, the link of major institutions such as the NAACP and the AFL-CIO to the Democratic Party is not to be overcome by an act of will.
Build the working people's organizations, build the unions, build the progressive forces, but don't expect to build a new Labour Party and then expect the working people to come to you. Then what do you do? Wait for some radicalizing event, some downturn and expect this working peoples party (which would be what-- Social Democratic at best), to become radicalized and turned into a revolutionary party? Its a fantasy.
I wish the situation was different in America. I wish there was a revolutionary force that had any sort of potential. I wish the left-wing of possible could be overcome by an act of will, but unforuntately like Karl Marx himself said, "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past."
I'll be in the DSA, in the cess pool of the Democratic Party, in the mainstream unions, where the working people are, until you comrades can prove me wrong and build a viable alternative for working people and then I'll apologize and happily join you.
As painful as it is to admit, Michael Harrington and what he affectionately called his fellow American Mensheviks have been right about the prospects for third parties and independent political action. And let's not forget these were people who came out of the Socialist Party and other parties that pursued "independent political action" even during the popular frontist era of the 1930s
An analysis of American Menshevikism:
U.S. parties are not like modern European parties. In Europe, the parties of the Left tend to name leaders on the basis of a political viewpoint and, in any case, only dues-paying members of the party have the right to elect delegates, who in turn select that leader. But in the United States anyone who declares himself or herself a member of a party can, without the payment of dues or the affirmation of a single political principle, help determine the leadership, program, and policies of the party.
The U.S. electoral system — something which socialists cannot change by an act of will — does not allow for a credible form of "independent political action" (as the Trotskyist and Trotskyist-derived portions of the U.S. Left call it). The real options are to support and build the anti-corporate left wing of the Democrats to the point where either (a) the Democrats become dominated by the left or (b) more likely, the "party" splits along ideological and class lines, or to abstain from electoral politics altogether except as a form of protest, which ensures that American workers will not take you seriously.
I wish it was otherwise. Yes, the Democratic Party taken as a whole is a cesspool. But it's a cesspool in which those fighting for a pro-worker politics have no choice but to wade.
It's true that prior to the 20th century, U.S. primaries were machine-driven, closed affairs. With open primaries the parties became more amorphous — which is why industrial unions in the 1930s were able to influence them in a positive way, within limits. The nature of the American electoral system is what it is, and not to be overcome by an act of will. The reason that third parties haven't become major parties once the ballot access rules were changed in the 1890s is not a failure to try. It's been tried, and tried, and tried again. Similarly, the link of major institutions such as the NAACP and the AFL-CIO to the Democratic Party is not to be overcome by an act of will.
Build the working people's organizations, build the unions, build the progressive forces, but don't expect to build a new Labour Party and then expect the working people to come to you. Then what do you do? Wait for some radicalizing event, some downturn and expect this working peoples party (which would be what-- Social Democratic at best), to become radicalized and turned into a revolutionary party? Its a fantasy.
I wish the situation was different in America. I wish there was a revolutionary force that had any sort of potential. I wish the left-wing of possible could be overcome by an act of will, but unforuntately like Karl Marx himself said, "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past."
I'll be in the DSA, in the cess pool of the Democratic Party, in the mainstream unions, where the working people are, until you comrades can prove me wrong and build a viable alternative for working people and then I'll apologize and happily join you.