Sorry for shouting!

I heard Wm Rivers Pitt speak spookily at a Kent State Peace and Memorial Rally about the “culture of fear” being spread by Ashcroft, seemingly wanting liberals to agree that this was not fair at all.

Following him, Kent resident radical stood up and stated “Richard Nixon and Gov. Rhodes are finally together again — burning in hell.” So much for the “culture of fear.” and turned his paper over to begin his talk about getting shot at Kent State campus, why he was there opposing the War. Pretty electrifying — and a good lesson.

http://struggle.net/Ben/2003/0305-way-fwd.htm?ben-ad
Such a course of action by the anti-war movement (ie: an orientation toward the masses and away from all bourgeois politicians) will certainly piss-off the entire strata of liberal-labor Democratic Party politicians who will argue that the “smart thing” is to work within the system and seek alliances with powerful saviors within the establishment (ie: Jim McDermott, Dennis Kucinich, etc.)

According to this argument, we should focus our precious time and energy on attempting to move the Democratic Party (an imperialist party, owned and controlled by the same big corporations that control the Republican Party) to the left.

But if we want a section of Democratic Party politicians to move to the left–the most effective way to accomplish this–is to turn our backs to them–and make clear that we recognize them as the flunkies of the rich that they are. As the anti-war movement abandons illusions in saviors from within the establishment–the bourgeoisie (which keeps these “saviors” on a leash) will be forced to give them permission to move to the left in order to better maintain the illusion that the system of bourgeois democracy can be made to work in the interests of the masses.

In this way the anti-war movement can help to transform the current political climate and greatly complicate the plans of the warmakers.

Further, by developing in the direction of independence from bourgeois influence, the anti-war movement will better prepare itself for the day when, as the bombs begin to fall, the “saviors” within the establishment attempt to pour cold water on the idea of militant mass actions.
——
radical site with some radical, honest ideas
please do a word search for “left ecosystem” and ck the drawing
——
http://struggle.net/ben/2005/cartoon.htm

The tragedy of the Greens in the last election is that a handfull of influential turncoats forced a “safe-states” platform of non-competition with Killer Kerry. Thus, they mounted a grotesque, non-campaign with Cobb as the laughing-stock non-candidate (I’m Green,and pro-peace, but don’t vote for me, vote for Kerry, he stands for nothing which the Greens support!) This will hang around the necks of the Greens like a stinking albatross for years to come- the Greens as servants of the corporate democrats. I have been a registered, active Green for years, but in 2004 I cast my vote for Nader. He wasnt perfect, but he was actually running, unlike Cobb.

Like another poster to this thread, my support for Nader and scorn for Kerry and the safe-states sellouts won me grief from namby-pamby anti-war liberals. I was bombarded with e-mails telling me I was a traitor to the cause, a supporter of fascism, and that “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.” Explaining that votes are not tallied that way and that a vote for Nader is actually just a vote for Nader did not help.

One good way to start would be to build a mass movement in support of Palestine’s self-determination, that campaigns for divestment from Israel. That would fuck the DP up.

Just a modest proposal.

And people already know where I stand on gender issues. I don’t care for one second that Republicans will use support of gay marriage, et al, to stampede Dems to the right. We need to quit being AWOL on gender, and let the Democratic Party rot in hell.

I’m also all for refoundation-regroupment… but that’s going to involve a fearless critique of all our most cherished notions about certain dead communists issuing holy writs that are timeless in their prescriptions, and our ideas of what democratic centralism means.

Thanks for the drop-by, Jon. I been runnin.

Comment by Stan — 11/13/2005 @ 5:20 am

Ok, how to do the exposing?

What strategies and tactics will expose the true role of the Democratic Party to it’s base?

Looking back at recent history, I would argue that eight years of Clinton in power greatly stimulated the break to the left by the Nader campaign in 2000. Left Liberals fell overthemselves to appear at Nader’s huge rallies.

Then after four years of Bush, the same Left Liberals fell over their own feet rushing back into the Democratic camp.

So we could say that a prerequisite for exposing the Democrats is to have them in power, instead of opposition. From this observation of course it could be said that therefore we should campaign for the Democrats to be in power, thus putting us in the contradictory and dishonest position of campaigning for a party we want to see eliminated politically. This would seem on the face of it pretty unpalatable.

So we have to look a little deeper at the lurching back and forth that goes on between elections, a little deeper into the behavior of the various class forces supportive of the Democratic Party, I think that it is fair to say that while the Left Liberals veered left and then right around Nader, the black community and the labor movement held steadfastly to their allegiance to the Democrats. Why? What are they getting out of this abusive relationship? What will it take to get them to make the break? This is the 64k question.

My own two cents on this? First it is a question of fear. For a worker, or someone in the black community, it comes down to how to survive at the edge of the abyss. Is it better to have someone pounding on your fingers with a sledge hammer while you hang on to the edge of the cliff, or have someone simply prying a bit with a yardstick? Right now that is the way the heart of the Democratic base looks at the situation.

It is also a question of self-confidence and belief that you will be listened to. I would like to have a dollar for every time a co-worker has told me that they agree with me, but demonstrating is useless.

It is a learned tradition of relying on the union or the ward leader to take care of it for you. You pay your dues, you vote for the slate and you can go about your life.

Given this reality of working class consciousness, what can be done? I think that we have to look for the opportunities that now are more frequently coming up as the crisis of capitalism deepens to the point that fear, lack of confidence and passivity are shrugged off. Opportunities like the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina as it devastated the black community. Opportunities like the crisis at General Motors and Delphi, where workers face devastating blows to their standard of living.

In such situations, the need for self organization becomes overwhelming. New organizing springs from the people themselves, as they meet together to confront their situation. Here is where the Democratic Party can be exposed, because the palliatives of warmed over New Dealism won’t cut it. The war in Iraq means that FEMA has no money and that there will be no massive public works projects rebuilding affordable housing. The corporate ties to GM mean that the DP can’t demand nationalization of GM, and the war in Iraq means there is no money for national health insurance. But the workers and the black community will make demands anyway.

We need a regroupment of independent leftists, socialist grouplets and advanced workers provide leadership for these new opportunities.
At a certain point, if such a leadership can be organized, the Democrats will be exposed, and superseded.

As to the PDA’s? I would expect that once the workers and the black community abandoned the Democrats, the best of them would follow. They are not truly independent actors. They need some class power to cling to.

I will, however, argue that a rare progressive voice willing to speak out from within the bowels of the DP is a boon to the movement rather than (necessarily) a sellout. There are a LOT more people who are trapped within the dominant paradigm who will NEVER be amenable to the socialiological esoterica that is found on websites like this one. And if a social/political revolution is preferrable to one involving blood and fire, then it is in everyone’s interests to bring as many of these people out of the “Matrix” as possible.

Three things need to occur in this country to break the Corporate stranglehold over politics and society, which in turn is the prerequisite for peaceful social reform:
1. We must rivive face-to-face community using any common-ground available (so long as it isn’t racist or anti-humanitarian);
2. there must be a nationwide economic relocalization;
3. the Democratic Party MUST be moved to the left.

These are the goals I am striving to introduce into a VERY conservative local body of political activists. I and others in the state are also fighting the inertia of the established Party rule at every step, introducing issues at meetings, arguing that the Party needs to take the RIGHT stand on Iraq (I advocate total withdrawal right now) as a step toward claiming real high-ground over the Republicans.

I feel like I have an opportunity in the next year to introduce, circumspectly, some of the issues and ideas that are usually found only in forums like this one. Maybe then, when the DP is faced with some epic policy decision in the future, the balance will tilt in favor of The People instead of The Money.

And, just maybe, this is an excercise in hubris and futility on my part. At least I can tell my kids I tried a little of everything before it all came crashing down.

353 days and a wake-up.

I like the Greens but its a matter of logistics. If they could win a statewide race in say Vermont or Oregon or Hawaii. Not neccesarily the governor’s race. secretary of state, labor comm., state treasurer, etc… They would make me pay serious attention. For Ralph Nader or anyone else to run for President without broad class support; i.e. John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot, even Pat Buchanan on some economic issues, almost earns(not quite) some of the scorn they receive from the MSM. When Ron Wyden joins Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Jeff Bingaman in voting for CAFTA with the rest of the DLC, I know that the greens in WA, OR, CA, & NM don’t have the power to elect a small-town mayor much less Ralph Nader. It just comes down to $$$ & #’s. You wouldn’t go to Vegas and bet your home mortgage at the Blackjack table would you? It’s like playing a few rounds of golf on the weekends and then betting your life that you can beat Tiger Woods or Anikka Soranstam at 18 holes at pebble beach. We make fun of George Soros & it makes us feel good but he helps the Michael Moore’s & Naomi Klein’s carry their message to us.
I’m waiting for somebody with a better/new idea and I don’t claim to have too many of the answers(I lost track when Reagan got elected president) but life is a contact sport and sometimes the biggest team just runs over everybody else and they don’t care if the umpire blows their whstle.

It is important at this stage of germinal social movement development (there IS a movement against the war right now) to attack the right-opportunism we see with groups like PDA who position themselves to the slight left of the main DP in order to put the brakes on the leftward movement of the antiwar movement. It is important for truth-telling at a minimum, and to knock their foot off the brakes. The reason this kind of activity exists is precisely to prevent the left gaining any political strength. So this represents a direct political struggle. The measure of the progress of that struggle is not some decisive victory over the DP in the next year, but the increasing ability to eventually disrupt the DP’s power with the development of an increasingly conscious left pole in American politics that does not limit itself to electoralism, but that builds its own institutions, consolidates local organizing bases, continues to challenge media representations, and increases the level of militancy in key struggles as they gain the recognition and approval of larger and larger sections of society.

(I have argued, eg, that “occupations to end the occupation” - that is, protracted sit-ins conducted in local Congressional offices and risking arrest to demand a promise to stop funding the war - would challenge the gradualism of the Dems (PDA included, tho they’d feel obliged to participate at some point), and would NOT alienate the broad antiwar movement. It would be seen as a moral action, not unlike the Civil Rights struggle. We have to increase militancy not with the peurile idea that the more provocative our actions, the more effective they’ll be, but of taking the masses as far as they have gone, and then one step further.)

The first decisive challenge to the DP must come in an electoral form, not by competing with them in an uneven head-to-head confrontation for elected office (except at the local level), but by openly and actively denying them electoral victories by shaving off the margins they need to win against Republicans. This is a risky strategy, but absolutely necessary… and one that is advanced in conjunction with increasingly militant non-electoral strategies. If all it does is strengthen Republicans, then it will be a Pyrrhic victory. Dragging down the DP must be part of a larger strategy of throwing the entire political system into crisis.

We are actually seeing the beginnings of this from internal contradictions now with the crisis of legitimacy created by the Republicans’ slash and burn methods. It will be the Democrats who rush in at some point to try and rescue the establishment from this crisis.

The Greens were actually gaining some strength; but they had some key weaknesses. One, they got caught up in presidential politics before they’d built strong local bases. Two, they were too white and too caught up in counter-cultural crap ( a class issue). Three, their lack of development of political consciousness among their membership led droves of them to lose heart and rush back to cling to the trousers of the DP with the Cobb faction in 2004.

Obviously, the critical defection for the DP will be when African America strikes out on a more independent political course. Socialists are a far smaller, but important bloc to leave the DP, and they carry a lot of weight in particular organizing initiatives in many sectors on many issues. And, imho, anyone who has the least idea how terrifying the environemental crisis is right now needs to understand that capitalism itself forecloses — by its very nature — any green market remedies, and that the earth itself requires a revolution. So one might envision a core alliance of red, black, and green at some point, that becomes a pole of attraction for the grwoing legions of disaffected Dems.

None of this is even possible if we don’t publicly oppose the DP, and expose it for what it is (as an institution). It is an essential part of a ruling class political edifice.

The whole party system in this country is completely corrupt and this is a crisis situation. In my life, I ended up dealing deeply with the Democratic Party through my involvement in the Washington movement in Chicago from the late 1970s to the early 1990s when everything we built there fell apart. Although I was really reluctant due to the fact that at heart I really really have never believed that reform of this failing system was possible and thought that I was working with people who shared this belief, wrong, many of them ultimately were true reformers at heart. I am really glad to have been a part of the Washington movement, it was really tough, it gave people in Chicago a lot of hope and staved off the worse effects of gentrification, mainly the young people out shooting eachother with little purpose, at least for a few years. But the movement ultimately failed, as far as I’m concerned, because many of the key people in leadership got so sucked into the Democratic Party they couldn’t get out. I do believe in the ballot or the bullet, but I only believe in using the ballot if you are trying to win something real, not to educate, or provide an alternative, or to work within the existing party structure to make a change. Yuck. It’s only for winning. It’s ok to play with the Democrats, and you can make them play with you even if they don’t want to, because Democrats like to win, too. They didn’t want to play with us, many of the people at the core of the Washington movement were affiliated with the Black Panther Party, the Young Lords, the Puerto Rican Socialist Party and other groups so influenced, and they didn’t like to play with us but they liked to win anyway. So they played. But to play, you have to have some chips. Anybody got some chips out there? I don’t think so. Any chips anybody ever had are long gone. It takes a really long time and a lot of people and a lot of organization, not to mention the money involved, to ever get any chips. I don’t see anyone in the position to do this, I think it is a really bad situation.

People who believe that they should deal directly with the Democratic Party structure and think they can appeal to the leadership are buying into the same fiction. The Democratic Party does not play fair, they don’t care about fair. You have to have something to hold over their heads. They don’t care about our kids, they don’t care about the people in Iraq. I can’t blame people for trying whatever it is they can find and hoping for a good outcome, but this is pretty futile. I find it very upsetting, and this is speaking mainly about people who I have direct contact with concerning the war in Iraq, but it seems that people think they have some inside track and know the rules. It just makes me sad. It’s fine to go talk to congresspeople, it’s fine to go through all of these motions, but I don’t see it going anywhere so far. And this is speaking about the PDA and the other left liberal groups that believe that they should deal with the Democrats to make a change.

Besides all of that, if you want to deal with one of the established parties, why pick the Democrats? They have had a losing strategy and they ain’t changing it, they’re just piling on more of the same. Shoot, go to the Republicans, work within their party, it’s all a game and they do have the winning strategy at this point. I sat and listened to a really old lady who is one of the DNC reps from Oklahoma give her report a couple of weeks ago. If you think she mentioned any discussion of issues at the latest DNC meeting, you would be wrong. She personally expressed her concern for the troops, but this is not what they talked about in Scottsdale. They talked about Howard Dean’s new strategy for getting votes, which seems to have been pretty removed from the real issues that have people all riled up, like Iraq for instance. I went up to her afterwards and thanked her for her concern for the troops, but told her I had to let her know how hard it was for me to vote for the Democratic candidates in the last election, and that for a long time I thought the Democratic candidate for senator was actually the Republican. She clearly did not want to get into a conversation about this.

Dean’s whole strategy, and it actually seems like a good strategy as strategies go, is to build a block by block national precinct organization, to actually have people talking to eachother on a local level, instead of just running a bunch of crappy TV ads. They are eager to recruit volunteers to take a precinct to organize. But the purpose of this is to get people to register Democratic and to vote Democratic. I have been honest and told them that I can’t do this, that I would be willing to work for candidates that I actually supported but not the party itself. I really don’t know if I’m right, but I would feel wrong lying to them, and would not be able to lie to other people about the Democratic Party anyway. I continue to go to their meetings for the people, not the party. Frankly there is nothing else here. There is actually a lot of dissent, and I do talk to people who agree with me, despite the fact that they keep working for the party anyway.

I don’t see any point in active opposition to the Democratic Party, I am not sure what you are looking for, because I think for anyone to be in a position to actively and successfully oppose the Democratic Party, first you would have to be in a position to get them to play with you, to take you seriously, to see you as people who could hold things over their heads and make them do tricks. When you oppose someone they must see you as a threat, otherwise it just looks foolish. And I’m just not seeing this. What is the point of spending time opposing the Democrats? You have to have a movement first, and I’m not seeing one. Maybe the first glimmerings, but I’m not convinced that things are even headed in that direction.