http://socialistworker.org/2016/04/05/why-is-socialism-in-the-spotlight
Why is socialism in the spotlight?
The Sanders campaign is generating enthusiasm for a socialist
alternative to the status quo, but achieving real change will require
much more than elections.
April 5, 2016
Supporters cheer Bernie Sanders at a campaign event in Phoenix (Gage
Skidmore)
Supporters cheer Bernie Sanders at a campaign event in Phoenix (Gage
Skidmore)
A SPECTER is haunting the opinion pages of the U.S. media--the specter
of socialism, as commentators and columnists struggle to explain the
unexpected popularity of Bernie Sanders' campaign for president.
They express the same confused exasperation with Democratic primary
voters as Hillary Clinton and her supporters among the Democratic Party
leadership. Like former Rep. Barney Frank, who, in an interview with
Slate.com, not only dismissed Sanders as having "little to show" for his
25 years in Congress, but sneered at his supporters for having "a lot of
time on their hands" and "unrealistic" ideas about the political system.
Frank's annoyance with Democratic voters for daring to have different
opinions than the party elite is increasingly coming out in Clinton
herself, despite her public relations strategy of posing as the
"positive" candidate. The latest case in point: Clinton's verbal
smackdown of a Greenpeace activist who asked during a campaign
appearance if Clinton would reject contributions from the fossil fuel
industry.
Actually, Clinton's real problem isn't "the Sanders campaign lying about
me," as she complained when confronted by the activist, but her own
campaign telling the truth about what she stands for--or, in reality,
stands against. Clinton's slogan, in contrast to Barack Obama's eight
years ago, might as well be "No, we can't": No to single-payer health
care, no to free college tuition, no to taking on Wall Street, and the
list goes on and on.
The Democratic leadership's bewilderment and bitterness will only
increase if Sanders can win the Wisconsin primary on April 5, after
starting from well behind in the opinion polls.
Though Clinton is still ahead in the overall delegate count that will
determine the nomination--and far ahead when the Democratic Party's
undemocratic "superdelegates" are taken into account--it's a testament
to the popularity of Sanders' anti-corporate, pro-labor message that he
continues to rack up votes and primary victories, in defiance of the
leaders of the so-called "party of the people" uniting behind Clinton.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HILLARY CLINTON and the Washington Post may be shocked and surprised
that socialism is no longer a dirty word--and that redbaiting isn't as
effective with voters as it used to be. But for anyone who has been
paying attention to the growing dissatisfaction with the status
quo--economic, political and social--it makes a lot of sense.
Granted, the closest we've come to "socialism" in the context of
mainstream politics recently was the half-baked identification of Barack
Obama as a red, back at the start of his presidency when his proposal of
a one-time economic stimulus package in response to the Great Recession
prompted headlines like Newsweek's cover "We are all socialists now."
That moment came and went fast, and we've been living in the era of
austerity ever since.
Socialism according to Sanders is more the real thing, though he belongs
to a particular current of socialism with a vision limited mainly to
moderate reforms achieved by working within the system. And that's
leaving aside the significant aspects of Sanders' own politics, like his
embrace of imperialism, that aren't radical at all.
It's a welcome development for the U.S. left to engage with a much wider
audience of people interested in socialism, and Sanders is definitely
the immediate cause. But we should also remember that the political
discontent and class anger that underlie Sanders' popularity didn't
begin with his campaign.
Sanders himself is the beneficiary of a radicalization driven by the
economic upheavals of the Great Recession and after, and especially the
consequences of growing inequality and the social crisis afflicting the
have-nots.
The most obvious concrete expression of this radicalization in recent
years was the Occupy movement, with its popularization of the idea that
the rule of the 1 Percent came at the expense of the 99 Percent.
But Occupy had plenty of ancestors, immediate and distant--both
international, with the Arab Spring and the "movement of the squares" in
Europe, and at home, including the uprising in Wisconsin, the movement
for marriage equality and the immigrant rights mega-marches 10 years ago
this spring.
Since Occupy, the eruption of protest against the epidemic of racist
police murder has given another form to the discontent--driven by not
only furious outrage at individual cases of violence, but also a growing
recognition that a more fundamental transformation will be necessary to
truly make Black lives matter.
These struggles and movements contributed in various ways, large and
small, to the broader Sanders phenomenon: the deep identification with
class issues; the perception that the political system is unalterably
corrupt; a recognition of the need for systemic change; above all, the
urgency of doing something about it.
In turn, the battles to come--while Election 2016 is still underway and
after--will have a different shape because of the enthusiastic response
to the Sanders campaign, his identification with socialism, and the
confidence the campaign inspires in people who want to see real change.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE SANDERS campaign has caught fire by connecting with the discontent
with Corporate America and the two-party system, including the liberal
wing of the U.S. political establishment, in the form of the Democratic
Party.
But by running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sanders is,
by definition, mobilizing that discontent for a battle within the
confines of the status quo.
This isn't so evident during the current stage of the election, while
Clinton and Sanders are still fighting for votes in the remaining
primaries. If anything, Sanders' criticisms of Clinton have grown shaper
over the course of the year. But at some point, the nomination race will
be decided, and the consequences of Sanders running as a Democrat will
become clear, one way or another.
Let's imagine that Sanders defies the very, very, very long odds against
him and wins the Democratic presidential nomination. The hard fact is he
would become the leader of a party that is institutionally opposed to
everything significant about his political agenda. On any issue where he
stands to the left of Hillary Clinton and the party establishment, he
would be fighting an uphill battle to overcome opposition among
Democrats, not just Republicans.
This wouldn't be because the Democratic establishment are all sore
losers. Though it claims to speak for working people and represent
liberal attitudes, the Democratic Party serves Wall Street and Corporate
America, before all else. They would direct the party's response to
Sanders, not his millions of supporters.
So if Sanders did become president and, for example, tried to achieve a
single-payer health care system, as he has promised, a majority of
members of Congress from his own party--beholden to campaign
contributions and all the lobbying in between elections from the
medical-pharmaceutical-insurance complex--would line up to stab him in
the back.
And that's the hypothetical scenario if Sanders somehow won the
nomination. The far more likely outcome is that Hillary Clinton wins,
which will lead to a simple question: Will Sanders call on his
supporters to vote for a candidate who represents the status quo he says
he wants to overturn?
Though he has continued to defy calls to curb his criticisms of Clinton
during the primaries, everything we know about Sanders suggests that, if
Clinton becomes the nominee, he will join the chorus calling for unity
behind the "lesser evil" to defeat the Republican "greater evil."
Sanders has said as much throughout the campaign, but if there's still
any doubt, his record of supporting the Democratic candidate for
president, even when there is an independent left-wing option, goes back
decades.
In 2004, for example, Sanders not only endorsed the Democratic nominee
John Kerry, but vowed to "run around this country and do everything I
can to dissuade people from voting for Ralph Nader"--the independent
candidate whose anti-corporate platform was a lot closer to Sanders' own.
Socialist Worker believes that it is important to give a different
answer. The left should withstand the pressure to "vote against" the
Republicans if that means voting for the Democrats.
A vote for the "lesser evil" to stop the "greater evil" not only
postpones any progress toward a genuinely left-wing agenda, but it
doesn't even stop the "greater evil." As we wrote last month:
Think about all the expectations invested in Barack Obama when he ran
for president in 2008, with his promise to bring fundamental changes to
Washington after eight long years of Bush and the Republicans.
And what was the result? Obama adopted the Bush administration's
mega-bailout of Wall Street after the 2008 financial crash, while
stiffing homeowners facing foreclosure. He continued Bush's "war on
terror," with a few changes in tactics and strategy. He deported more
undocumented immigrants in a shorter time than Bush managed. He
accelerated the corporate school deform drive.
That's why this newspaper will support a left-wing alternative to the
presidential candidates of the two mainstream parties, with no illusion
that it can win. Our endorsement of the Green Party presidential
campaign of Jill Stein is a protest vote against the two-party
system--and a modest attempt to advance the project of organizing a
future alternative outside the Democratic Party.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AT THE same time, we will keep our sights set beyond the elections.
Electoral campaigns have long been an activity of the socialist
movement, but they are only one aspect.
Our tradition defines socialism as the "self-emancipation of the working
class," to return to Karl Marx's words. That means we look to mass
protests, strikes and workers' struggles, social movements and direct
action, because these give confidence and experience to masses of people
to look to their own power to win change.
Elections shouldn't be seen as separate from struggle. The ideas put
forward by Sanders and his campaign, the enthusiasm they have generated,
the return of socialism to political discussion--all these can inspire
people to extend their political commitment beyond casting a ballot.
The protest in Chicago last month against racist billionaire Donald
Trump that forced him to cancel his campaign rally is one example. Many
of the demonstrators identified as Sanders supporters. But opposition to
Trump's racist message went beyond one politician's campaign.
The anti-Trump protest was Black, immigrant, Muslim, white, women and
men, straight and LGBT--all standing together against bigotry and
reaction. That kind of resistance has to continue, no matter who wins
the 2016 election.
The Democratic Party will pull in the opposite direction. Its goal,
especially at election time, is to channel energy and initiative away
from mobilizing struggles at the grassroots--and into canvassing for
candidates, raising money, phone banking and the like.
Liberal voices insist that this is "political realism"--that if you want
to accomplish something concrete, you have to work inside the system.
History teaches a different lesson. Think of the political rights and
social programs we value--Social Security, voting rights and
anti-discrimination policies, reproductive rights, environment
protections and marriage equality, to name a few. They were the result,
most of all, of protest and pressure from outside the political system.
As the people's historian Howard Zinn said in a speech in 2009:
We must not put ourselves in the position of looking at the world from
[the politicians'] eyes and say, "Well, we have to compromise, we have
to do this for political reasons." We have to speak our minds.
This is the position that the abolitionists were in before the Civil
War...Lincoln didn't believe that his first priority was abolishing
slavery. But the anti-slavery movement did, and the abolitionists said,
"We're not going to put ourselves in Lincoln's position. We are going to
express our own position, and we are going to express it so powerfully
that Lincoln will have to listen to us."
And the anti-slavery movement grew large enough and powerful enough that
Lincoln had to listen. That's how we got the Emancipation Proclamation
and the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments.
That's been the story of this country. Where progress has been made,
wherever any kind of injustice has been overturned, it's been because
people acted as citizens, and not as politicians. They didn't just moan.
They worked, they acted, they organized, they rioted if necessary.
Whatever happens next, this year's presidential election won't even
begin to resolve the disasters of capitalism that have given rise to an
urgent desire for change. We need a left that can respond with new
levels of resistance.
Socialists have many ways to contribute to that project, right here and
right now. We can put forward our own vision of socialism: a
fundamentally different society from capitalism in which the
working-class majority rules. We need to make the case for a left
alternative in the elections, independent of the Democrats.
And we can build the resistance to injustice and oppression in all the
struggles taking place throughout society--while election season is
underway and long after.
Print
E-mail
Share
close
Facebook
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Digg
del.icio.us
Diigo
Furl
Google
identi.ca
LinkedIn
MySpace
Newskicks
Newsvine
Ping This!
Reddit
Technorati
Tumblr
Yahoo
Respond
.
Main menu
Home
Recent
E-mail alerts
RSS
Donate
International Socialist Org.
About Us
Contact us
..
Related articles
◾Inside out or outside in?
◾What's fueling the Clinton campaign?
◾Sanders and the struggles to come
◾Discussing Sanders in my union
◾What will lesser evilism look like in 2016?
Recent articles
4/7
4/6
4/5
4/4
3/31
3/30
Thursday, April 7th
◾Saving capitalism or getting rid of it?
◾Inside out or outside in?
◾Don't drink the Teflon
◾The struggle to unite our fights
◾Views in brief
◾Las lecciones del chavismo
Blogs
Critical reading
◾Why the Democrats don't deserve your support
◾Middle East crisis not due to religious divisions
◾In memory of Ellen Meiksins Wood
◾Donna Murch on the real MLK
◾Chris Williams on the fight to save the Gila River
E-mail alerts
Sign up for e-mail alerts from SocialistWorker.org.
E-mail address:
Find out about the activities of the International Socialist Organization
.
WeAreMany.org
.
HaymarketBooks.org
.
Blank-ad-space.gif
.
.
SocialistWorker.org
Recent
E-mail Alerts
RSS
Donate
International Socialist Org.
Who We Are
Where We Stand
Contact Us
War/Antiwar
Economy
National
International
Opinion
History/Traditions
Labor
Activist News
Readers' Views
Books/Entertainment
Published by the International Socialist Organization