Socialist Alternative Supports Bernie Sanders

[B5C]

Sorry, but SALT isn't endorsing Bernie Sanders for a President 2016 run. SALT is basically telling him to run independent is better than running as an Democrat. In 2016, it would be easier for him to join as an Democrat because he can get funding and get onto the debates. Since the media only covers the presidential & primary debates of the two parties.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sorry, but SALT isn't endorsing Bernie Sanders for a President 2016 run. SALT is basically telling him to run independent is better than running as an Democrat. In 2016, it would be easier for him to join as an Democrat because he can get funding and get onto the debates. Since the media only covers the presidential & primary debates of the two parties.

Why is SAlt telling Sanders anything?

[VivalaCuarta]

The less it becomes possible to mobilize the workers’ votes for one or the other of these two old bourgeois parties, the more impelling and powerful will become the urge of the workers to found a party of their own or to seek a substitute for it. That mood of the workers will create a condition wherein American capitalism will objectively require a pseudo-radical party to divert the workers from a party of their own. This development, in my opinion, will most likely precede the development of a mass fascist party. America will most likely see a new radical bourgeois reform party before the development of American fascism on a mass scale.


That is what really happened in the Thirties, in a peculiarly distorted form. Roosevelt revamped the Democratic Party to serve the role of a pseudo-radical, “almost” workers party. By that he choked off entirely, for the period, the development toward an independent labor party. The Roosevelt “New Deal” became a sort of American substitute for the social program of the old, social democracy. Is a repetition of that performance likely within the framework of the Democratic Party? I doubt that very much. I think there can be only one Roosevelt episode. The whole trend since his death has been in the other direction.


Next time, the role played by Roosevelt—which was a role of salvation for American capitalism—will most likely require a new party. In the essence of the matter that is what Wallace’s party is. Wallace is the, as yet, unacknowledged, candidate for the role of diverting the workers’ movement for independent political action into the channel of bourgeois politics dressed up with radical demagogy which costs nothing. That is what we have to say, and that’s what we have to fight—vigorously and openly, and with no qualifications at all. We have to be 100% anti-Wallaceites. We have to stir up the workers against this imposter, and explain to them that they will never get a party of their own by accepting substitutes.


The slogan: “Build An Independent Labor Party!” is a slogan for the class mobilization of the workers. In some incomprehensible way this seems to have been transformed in the minds of some comrades as a mere demand to break the two-party system of the capitalists. This is not the same thing at all. It means merely a bourgeois party shake-up and not a class alignment.


Now, a break-up of the two party parliamentary system in America is undoubtedly a good thing. It destroys the fetish of the trade union bureaucracy to the effect that it is impossible to operate on the political field outside the traditional pattern. Splits in the two old bourgeois parties are bound to shake up the labor bureaucracy, loosen things up and create a more favorable situation for agitation for the formation of a labor party. But this break-up of the two-party system and splits in the bourgeois parties come about under the pressure of social crisis. These are not our tasks. Bourgeois parties are not the arena for our operation. Our specific task is the class mobilization of the workers against not only the two old parties, but any other capitalist parties which might appear.

--James P. Cannon, founder of Trotskyism in the U.S., in 1948

[Loony Le Fist]

It's a lot harder to organize Ma and Pa's wage laborers, though, and Ma and Pa know that. The petit-bourgeois can come along as individuals, of course, but as a class their role is wholly reactionary, perhaps even more so than the haute bourgeoisie.

How so? They don't have as much invested in the system as more powerful elites do. Perhaps they are reactionary now, but opinions are fluid. We need to cast a wide a net as possible and appeal to as many people as possible. That doesn't mean we need to change what we stand for. We need to change the messaging. Make it appeal to as many people as possible. We have enough enemies already--we need more allies.

I am a member of the PB. And I saw the light. Right now, I'm not doing so well financially, considering that minimum wage laws don't really apply. Personally I think I can use my experience to change the minds of others too.

More generally, I think you're buying too much into conciliatory social-democratic rhetoric, that the problem is these capitalists and these politicians rather than the entire institution of class society.

While I don't reject the idea of voting in politicians like Sanders who can provide relief to the working class, we should be under no illusions they have any obligation to the people. Actual revolution, or at least the credible threat, are the only means through which we can exert pressure on elites to enact lasting reforms. Nonetheless, we must always be looking forward towards a true workers state. The transformation cannot simply stop when reforms are passed. The pressure must never let up. Permanent Revolution.

On the contrary, I agree that the entire institution of capitalism and the overall political system is flawed. But I also acknowledge that the system must be dismantled in stages. You have to have a movement before we can even think about worker emancipation. We have to withdraw from the capitalist system, and expect reprisals from the enemy. Self-defense will be a necessary element of this.

Revolution is necessary. But it is not inevitable. It must be made to happen.

I don't think picking up guns and fighting our enemy directly where they are strongest is a good idea. I think a better idea is cutting them off. The way I imagine revolution is not with direct attacks on the enemy. Rather, I see it as people cutting the state and capitalist systems off. Forming independent communes and worker cooperatives. Withdrawing from the state and forming our own systems, and expecting them to come after us for depriving them of fuel for the engine of capitalism. Action. Not voting. It can be done in stages. It can start right now.

[synthesis]

How so? They don't have as much invested in the system as more powerful elites do. Perhaps they are reactionary now, but opinions are fluid. We need to cast a wide a net as possible and appeal to as many people as possible. That doesn't mean we need to change what we stand for. We need to change the messaging. Make it appeal to as many people as possible. We have enough enemies already--we need more allies.

This is exactly what we don't need to do. Focusing on how to "market" socialism is a dead end road at best. Particularly, trying to "market" it to "people," rather than the working class, is a pretty good indicator that a petit-bourgeois agenda is being followed.

I am a member of the PB. And I saw the light. Right now, I'm not doing so well financially, considering that minimum wage laws don't really apply. Personally I think I can use my experience to change the minds of others too.

First off, the petite-bourgeoisie in many parts of the world can be worse off than their respective working class, particularly with the rural-urban divide in developing countries. But, again, Marxism has nothing to do with "seeing the light," "changing the minds of others," or "appealing to as many people as possible." On a macrosocial scale, it is about material interests, and the petite-bourgeoisie has very different interests from the working class.

On the contrary, I agree that the entire institution of capitalism and the overall political system is flawed. But I also acknowledge that the system must be dismantled in stages. You have to have a movement before we can even think about worker emancipation. We have to withdraw from the capitalist system, and expect reprisals from the enemy. Self-defense will be a necessary element of this.

What does this mean, "withdrawing from the capitalist system"?

I don't think picking up guns and fighting our enemy directly where they are strongest is a good idea. I think a better idea is cutting them off. The way I imagine revolution is not with direct attacks on the enemy. Rather, I see it as people cutting the state and capitalist systems off. Forming independent communes and worker cooperatives. Withdrawing from the state and forming our own systems, and expecting them to come after us for depriving them of fuel for the engine of capitalism. Action. Not voting. It can be done in stages. It can start right now.

Marxist revolution is the smashing of the state and the construction of a proletarian replacement, not "cutting off capitalist systems" or "withdrawing from the state" - again, I have no idea what that even means. "Forming independent communes and worker cooperatives" - this can be done, has been done, and is being done in the capitalist mode of production, and does nothing to challenge it.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the way you have conflated the working class with "the people" in your quote is extremely problematic, to say the least. The petite-bourgeoisie is a class enemy of the proletariat; individuals can be allies, sure, but to say that their interests are the same is a complete perversion of Marxist theory.

[synthesis]

Man, what is it about SAlt threads that brings out all the apologists for the petite-bourgeoisie? (Rhetorical question.)

[Loony Le Fist]

This is exactly what we don't need to do. Focusing on how to "market" socialism is a dead end road at best. Particularly, trying to "market" it to "people," rather than the working class, is a pretty good indicator that a petit-bourgeois agenda is being followed.

I suppose the solution is to keep it trapped in the ivory tower then. Now that's a dead end road.

First off, the petite-bourgeoisie in many parts of the world can be worse off than their respective working class, particularly with the rural-urban divide in developing countries. But, again, Marxism has nothing to do with "seeing the light," "changing the minds of others," or "appealing to as many people as possible." On a macrosocial scale, it is about material interests, and the petite-bourgeoisie has very different interests from the working class.

Who was talking about Marxism? I'm talking about worker ownership and workplace democracy. We can't even begin to talk about economic theories until we have an actual movement.

What does this mean, "withdrawing from the capitalist system"?

I explained this later, as you will acknowledge, and then attempt to criticize.

Marxist revolution is the smashing of the state and the construction of a proletarian replacement, not "cutting off capitalist systems" or "withdrawing from the state" - again, I have no idea what that even means.

Fascinating you say that, because then right after you suddenly say...

"Forming independent communes and worker cooperatives" - this can be done, has been done, and is being done in the capitalist mode of production, and does nothing to challenge it.

...Which is precisely what I meant by "withdrawing from the state". It has done nothing to challenge it, because it has not happened on a wide enough scale. It needs to happen at a broader scale. If there is no response to repress from the bourgeois, that means it didn't go far enough.

Perhaps this comes down to ideological differences. I am anti-statist as well as a leftist.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the way you have conflated the working class with "the people" in your quote is extremely problematic, to say the least.

Sorry that is so problematic for you. It seems that in your view, leftist ideas aren't supposed to appeal to anyone but people that earn wages. That leaves out homeless people, and those like Engles who were independently wealthy. My mistake for thinking leftist ideas should appeal to as many people as possible, and not just to a particular class.

The petite-bourgeoisie is a class enemy of the proletariat; individuals can be allies, sure, but to say that their interests are the same is a complete perversion of Marxist theory.

Wow. Sorry to have perverted the theory of the all-mighty Marx! I must go now on a pilgrimage to Moscow, go to Teatralnaya Square, bow to the statue of Karl Marx, seek penance, and, with tears streaming down my face, ask for forgiveness. Give me a break, dude!

I am all ears to hearing how superior your ideas for advancing the left's cause are.

[Tim Cornelis]

I suppose the solution is to keep it trapped in the ivory tower then. Now that's a dead end road.

No one's arguing that.

Who was talking about Marxism? I'm talking about worker ownership and workplace democracy. We can't even begin to talk about economic theories until we have an actual movement.

Then you need a paradigm shift toward the realisation that a post-capitalist society is a multi-faceted social transformation of all social institutions, not just a change in management. We can't build a movement and then argue whether we should have social-democracy, market socialism, or communism. Our aims should be clear and apparent prior.

...Which is precisely what I meant by "withdrawing from the state". It has done nothing to challenge it, because it has not happened on a wide enough scale. It needs to happen at a broader scale. If there is no response to repress from the bourgeois, that means it didn't go far enough.

It doesn't go far enough unless it's a social revolution, in which case forming communes and cooperatives is a moot point.

Sorry that is so problematic for you. It seems that in your view, leftist ideas aren't supposed to appeal to anyone but people that earn wages. That leaves out homeless people, and those like Engles who were independently wealthy. My mistake for thinking leftist ideas should appeal to as many people as possible, and not just to a particular class.

Communism is a proletarian class movement. (Petite-)bourgeois individuals may join as individuals.

Wow. Sorry to have perverted the theory of the all-mighty Marx! I must go now on a pilgrimage to Moscow, go to Teatralnaya Square, bow to the statue of Karl Marx, seek penance, and, with tears streaming down my face, ask for forgiveness. Give me a break, dude!

Marxism, as you showcase, is necessary to understand clearly the task of revolutionism.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Sorry that is so problematic for you. It seems that in your view, leftist ideas aren't supposed to appeal to anyone but people that earn wages. That leaves out homeless people, and those like Engles who were independently wealthy. My mistake for thinking leftist ideas should appeal to as many people as possible, and not just to a particular class.

And here I was thinking communism was about ending class society.

Wow. Sorry to have perverted the theory of the all-mighty Marx! I must go now on a pilgrimage to Moscow, go to Teatralnaya Square, bow to the statue of Karl Marx, seek penance, and, with tears streaming down my face, ask for forgiveness. Give me a break, dude!

Instead of reacting like a child to a certain formulation, you could try to defend your view. How do you see the petite-bourgeoisie on the same side of the proletariat except in some abstract way against "corporations" or "the state"?

[synthesis]

I suppose the solution is to keep it trapped in the ivory tower then. Now that's a dead end road.

Sorry that is so problematic for you. It seems that in your view, leftist ideas aren't supposed to appeal to anyone but people that earn wages.

I guess you missed the memo about historical materialism. Communism is not about "leftist ideas" but about material and class interests.

Who was talking about Marxism? I'm talking about worker ownership and workplace democracy. We can't even begin to talk about economic theories until we have an actual movement.

"Worker ownership" and "workplace democracy" are meaningless catchphrases of the bourgeois pseudo-socialist.

That leaves out homeless people, and those like Engles who were independently wealthy. My mistake for thinking leftist ideas should appeal to as many people as possible, and not just to a particular class.

The "homeless" (which is kind of a first-world construct) are either lumpenproletarian or precarian, and either way this doesn't violate the schema provided to you.

And yes, it is your mistake to conflate class analysis with "leftist ideas." The idea that communists should try to attract "the independently wealthy"... I don't even know what to say about that.

...Which is precisely what I meant by "withdrawing from the state". It has done nothing to challenge it, because it has not happened on a wide enough scale. It needs to happen at a broader scale. If there is no response to repress from the bourgeois, that means it didn't go far enough.

It will never happen on a wide enough scale, because there is no class basis to it. Your argument here is the height of petit-bourgeois tactical diversion.

Perhaps this comes down to ideological differences. I am anti-statist as well as a leftist.

This means absolutely nothing - it is almost hilariously devoid of meaning.

I am all ears to hearing how superior your ideas for advancing the left's cause are.

Communism has nothing to do with "advancing the left's cause." Its only concern is furthering the interests of the international working class.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Why is SAlt telling Sanders anything?

They're not, I very much doubt Sanders has even glimpsed at the Socialist Alternative website. The article, badly written though it is, seems to basically be arguing that Sanders running independently of the Democrat machine would be indicative of not only discontent with the two party system but also show some of the potential for left-wing working class representatives to run themselves. Sanders is a figure nominally on the 'left' of politics in the US so it's a positive sign that he perhaps feels confident enough to stand independently as it could pave the way for Socialist Alternative candidates to stand more broadly in the future.

[Loony Le Fist]

And here I was thinking communism was about ending class society.

And how, pray tell, do you end classless society without framing your ideas in a more relevant way so that they get through to people? That is the whole point.

Instead of reacting like a child to a certain formulation, you could try to defend your view. How do you see the petite-bourgeoisie on the same side of the proletariat except in some abstract way against "corporations" or "the state"?

I responded to zealotry with precisely how it should be responded to. With mockery. What would be the point of rebutting Marxist jingoism? Marx was a great thinker, but no one is a prophet.

[Loony Le Fist]

No one's arguing that.

I certainly hope not.

Then you need a paradigm shift toward the realisation that a post-capitalist society is a multi-faceted social transformation of all social institutions, not just a change in management. We can't build a movement and then argue whether we should have social-democracy, market socialism, or communism. Our aims should be clear and apparent prior.

It doesn't go far enough unless it's a social revolution, in which case forming communes and cooperatives is a moot point.

Communism is a proletarian class movement. (Petite-)bourgeois individuals may join as individuals.

Completely agree on all counts.

Marxism, as you showcase, is necessary to understand clearly the task of revolutionism.

How can you be so sure? Because Marx said so?

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

As usual, the people on Revleft are blowing this way out of proportion.

A few sentences about how it would be positive if there was a shift to the left and people broke away from the two party system seem to be enough to set off a bout of left wing namecalling. It's simply mindboggling to me how one can even interpret the statement made by SAlt as an endorsement of this Sanders guy in any way or form, it clearly isn't.

At this point it just feels like people are looking for excuses to call other organisations social democrats, beorgeois, or whatever the hell they feel like. Usually while they're calling for left unity...

Also, why do people on here seem to think "Social democracy" describes what SAlt is striving for? Is it their methods, their pamphlets, their statements, what's written on their website? Would you rather they set up little city guerilla groups all over the US or call for armed resistance to the state? Would that make them good communists? Please enlighten me as to how a party is supposed to behave.

[VivalaCuarta]

Dear Metal Head.

Here are a few of the few sentences I read in SAlt's article:

As a first step, we would urge Bernie to organize a genuinely representative national conference of progressive, community, and labor organizations to discuss the way forward in late 2014 or early 2015. This conference could become the focus to galvanize all those who want to build a new authentic working-class politics in America. Such momentum would, we hope, persuade Bernie Sanders to take the historic step of running as an independent left candidate for the presidency in 2016.

These particular sentences happen to be the article's conclusion!

So when Giant Monkey Man says SAlt is not telling Sanders to do anything, he is only correct in the sense that the article reads more like begging than telling, at least to my eye.

Again: SAlt is calling on the "independent" Democrat senator Sanders to call a conference to rope labor into an "independent left" campaign.

Independent of what? Not of the bourgeoisie. What SAlt wants is for Sanders to help it to create another trap, another obstacle for the workers.

[Zukunftsmusik]

And how, pray tell, do you end classless society without making your framing your ideas in a more relevant way so that they get through to people? That is the whole point.

To you, perhaps it is. Personally, I don't really see this as a problem of reaching out to enough people or reformulate or thoughts in a more relevant way. Your original statement was specifically leaving out class. You end up with some magic formula where propaganda -> ???? -> FULL COMMUNISM.

I responded to zealotry with precisely how it should be responded to. With mockery. What would be the point of rebutting Marxist jingoism? Marx was a great thinker, but no one is a prophet.

Wet juvenile dreams about street fights or whatever are bad, sure. You weren't just mocking zealotry, though. You were specifically laying down non-violence as a principle, which is a pipedream because 1) how will you stand up against a state whose surveillance and control over the population just continues to grow and 2) it ignores what violence really is, how it occurs and in what relation it stands to class society and class struggle. You can't just wish violence away.

[Loony Le Fist]

I guess you missed the memo about historical materialism. Communism is not about "leftist ideas" but about material and class interests.

To me leftist ideas are precisely about material and class interests.

"Worker ownership" and "workplace democracy" are meaningless catchphrases of the bourgeois pseudo-socialist.

So now worker ownership of the means of production (which I shortened to worker ownership) and workplace democracy are now meaningless catchphrases of the bourgeois? I thought workers revolting and taking control of their workplaces was the very heart of what many here are trying to accomplish. Seriously?

The "homeless" (which is kind of a first-world construct) are either lumpenproletarian or precarian, and either way this doesn't violate the schema provided to you.

Ok.

And yes, it is your mistake to conflate class analysis with "leftist ideas." The idea that communists should try to attract "the independently wealthy"... I don't even know what to say about that.

Again, I pose the question: was Engles not himself independently wealthy?

It will never happen on a wide enough scale, because there is no class basis to it. Your argument here is the height of petit-bourgeois tactical diversion.

Detaching from systems of power and hierarchy automatically have a class basis to them. What is the diversion here? It is a simple fact that the capitalist system is an engine that runs on money. Deprive that system of money through separation and detachment and it comes down. It's not the only means I support, but it is what I find to be the most effective solution.

This means absolutely nothing - it is almost hilariously devoid of meaning.

Ok.

Anti-statist - Means I don't think there should be a centralized state or any unjustified hierarchical power structures.
Leftist - Means I want to abolish capitalism, private property, and empower workers.

How's that?

Communism has nothing to do with "advancing the left's cause." Its only concern is furthering the interests of the international working class.

Well I say that the left's cause is furthering the interests of the international working class. Ergo advancing the left's cause is equivalent to furthering the interests of the international working class.

[Loony Le Fist]

To you, perhaps it is. Personally, I don't really see this as a problem of reaching out to enough people or reformulate or thoughts in a more relevant way. Your original statement was specifically leaving out class. You end up with some magic formula where propaganda -> ???? -> FULL COMMUNISM.

Incorrect. I said that it will require a complete withdraw from systems of power. The formation of independent systems of sustenance outside of the capitalist system. It will require worker revolt through sit-down strikes and slow-downs. And it will require self-defense when the state retaliates. I mentioned this in several posts. You are free to verify this. That is the "???" that you are referring to.

Wet juvenile dreams about street fights or whatever are bad, sure. You weren't just mocking zealotry, though. You were specifically laying down non-violence as a principle, which is a pipedream because 1) how will you stand up against a state whose surveillance and control over the population just continues to grow and 2) it ignores what violence really is, how it occurs and in what relation it stands to class society and class struggle. You can't just wish violence away.

The mockery was in direct response to this

The petite-bourgeoisie is a class enemy of the proletariat; individuals can be allies, sure, but to say that their interests are the same is a complete perversion of Marxist theory.

I am against violence. I'm not opposed to self-defense. What you are talking about is violence against a tyrannical state apparatus. That is no longer violence, it is self-defense. I have stated repeatedly that the state will retaliate with force against any revolt, even a non-violent one. That is where self-defense comes in. I completely accept self-defense as very necessary. Please provide the quote where I have stated otherwise.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Incorrect. I said that it will require a complete withdraw from systems of power. The formation of independent systems of sustenance outside of the capitalist system. It will require worker revolt through sit-down strikes and slow-downs. And it will require self-defense when the state retaliates. I mentioned this in several posts. You are free to verify this. That is the "???" that you are referring to.

The "????" refers to the fact that you seem to think that simply "spreading leftist ideas" will create communism. The question marks refer to the fact that it's a complete mystery to me what happens between spreading of ideas and revolution. Other than that, I'm not sure how to respond to this. How are your trajectory of how a revolution happens anything else but your own neat ideas? Are your ideas based on any generalisation from actual historical movements at all? Do you seriously think one can sit- and slow-down towards communism?

The mockery was in direct response to this

Sorry, I was mixing up what we were talking about with some other stuff you had said (possibly in another thread?). To get back on the original topic: could you give a defense of your view on how the petite-bourgeoisie as a class has the same interests as proles?

[Loony Le Fist]

The "????" refers to the fact that you seem to think that simply "spreading leftist ideas" will create communism. The question marks refer to the fact that it's a complete mystery to me what happens between spreading of ideas and revolution. Other than that, I'm not sure how to respond to this. How are your trajectory of how a revolution happens anything else but your own neat ideas? Are your ideas based on any generalisation from actual historical movements at all? Do you seriously think one can sit- and slow-down towards communism?

No. But I certainly think that withdrawing from systems of control, hierarchy and power does.

Sitting-down and striking is better than what we are doing now. Look at the BLS statistics yourself. There have been almost no strikes since the 1980's in the US. Obviously strikes alone aren't the end all be all. There must be more, but that is a primary step--worker ownership and control.

This would almost guarantee a fight with the state. There must be resistance. Police cannot simply be allowed to drag protesters away in vans or squad cars. It has to be done strategically, the encounter must be recorded, and posted publicly. Preferably resistance must be widespread and general. Make the police call the whole precinct down, and make sure there is video.

The problem is that there has been no historical precedent for what is actually necessary for the overthrow of this type of state. A state that has massive militarized police forces. The first prong is withdrawl from the state apparatus and commerce. For situations where this is not possible, resistance via disruption. But there has also never been a time in history where videography is so accessible and information so easy to distribute.

The idea is to minimize conflict, and where it is necessary, to turn conflict in our favor since the state is very strong at using violence. By using video recordings of the encounters and demonstrating the brutality, even if we lose an encounter, we can win sympathy in the hearts and minds of people through powerful imagery. And if we are able to fight off those that would seek to commit acts of violence against our cause, that also serves as a rallying tool as well. In any event, we must always expect violence from the state and plan accordingly.

Sorry, I was mixing up what we were talking about with some other stuff you had said (possibly in another thread?). To get back on the original topic: could you give a defense of your view on how the petite-bourgeoisie as a class has the same interests as proles?

What I think I said was that it is possible to sway members of the PB. I suppose that would no longer make them PB. I'm using this definition of PB from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia
Petty bourgeoisie (literally small bourgeoisie), is a French term (sometimes derogatory) referring to a social class comprising semi-autonomous peasantry and small-scale merchants whose politico-economic ideological stance is determined by reflecting that of a haute (high) bourgeoisie, with which the petite bourgeoisie seeks to identify itself, and whose bourgeois morality it strives to imitate.

The idea is to propagandize the PB, to deprogram them from wanting to identify themselves with the bourgeois. To make them realize that the capitalistic machine is simply one that provides them with false hope. Because that is precisely what the PB buys into. Give them the red-pill so to speak.

I'm not saying this task is easy. But I feel it is worth it. After all, I awoke from the false hope of capitalism.