This article is the best exposition I've seen, of the socialist point of
view. Also, be aware that I must copy Truthdig articles directly from the
website or my provider won't allow me to send them which is what caused part
of my problem with the list.
Miriam
Truthdig
Bernie Sanders' Endgame Is an Opportunity for the Radical Left
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/bernie_sanders_endgame_is_an_opportunity
_for_the_radical_left_20160720/
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterMore AddThis Share optionsShare to Email
Posted on Jul 20, 2016
By Nathan Fisher
Activist Cornel West, left, endorsed the Green Party's Jill Stein for
president after supporting Bernie Sanders during his primary run. (Evan
Vucci /
AP(http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/DEM-2016-Sanders/831c2e8b71524d3c9
5c58bdc89c38ca1/13/0) )
Six long months remain before the inauguration of the 45th president of the
United States. With Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both promising to
continue to yell "fire!" in our crowded political theater until the
blissful, psychotic finale unfolds, 2016 is bound to be one of those years
that will be underlined in history books. Something is happening, and it is
very strange.
There is something for everyone in this ceremony of mutually assured
destruction. Shell-shocked neoliberals-still floating in midair like Wile E.
Coyote after the graceless collapse of their blinkered worldview-are simply
waiting for the laws of demography to hurtle them into the void. Right-wing
nationalists-who found themselves in that great throng after stumbling and
searching for meaning in the political landfill they were escorted to by
both parties-have found something to their liking in a dusted-off, diet
version of fascism
Perhaps radical leftists have been the most delightfully perplexed. All of
them at some point have had to face the season's most unbelievable
"problem": A self-avowed democratic socialist was within striking distance
of the White House.
For those facing down a century whose primary motive force was
anticommunism, this was an unprecedented development in need of immediate
elucidation. The explanations were varied. Some saw proof of socialism's
undying power. Some saw a "sheepdog" who was using the Democratic Party to
corral would-be radicals and denude their real power. Others saw a SINO
(socialist in name
only(http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/is-bernie-sanders-a-soci
alist-in-name-only-120545) ) or imperial pig dog who embraced American
exceptionalism and claimed an undeserved title.
No matter. While the radical left searched for guidance (is Sanders a
degenerate or a deformed workers candidate?), millions across the country
coalesced into a movement propelling his campaign forward. At various points
in the cycle, Sanders seemed to have a genuine and clearly perceptible
chance to gain position over Hillary Clinton, the most well-oiled candidate.
Of course, it is premature to speak declaratively-even hindsight is not
20/20, as many of us are still considering and reconsidering what it is we
just saw-but at this point, some observations can be made, and perhaps some
strategy offered, as the Sanders campaign orchestrates his endgame.
I first saw Sanders speak in August of last year at a campaign event in Los
Angeles. At the time, his campaign was on the cusp of becoming the Big
Thing, and I was inclined to approach it with a skepticism shared by many
comrades. Sanders, it seemed to me, appeared to be too gladly playing the
role of loyal opposition, with Clinton's nomination a foregone conclusion.
Because the absence of even a nominal selection process within the
Democratic Party was suspect, Sanders (along with rental candidates Martin
O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb) stepped in, validating the party's
image of itself as a source of vibrant internal debate and able to
accommodate a left faction.
At this stump speech, I wanted to hear him say two words that would make me
believe otherwise: "socialist" and "Clinton." The first would signify that
his run wouldn't completely subdue its radicalizing potential to the
Democratic Party's best interests. The second would show that it was meant
to contest the political ideology on which the party was built and that
fault lines would be exposed.
Sanders said neither. Instead of attacking Clintonism, he continuously
referenced the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and the Koch brothers,
preferring to situate his enemies as far as possible from home turf. He
spoke of "a political revolution," but it seemed that revolution would be
constituted by high voter turnout. I left unconvinced.
A few months later, Sanders gave a speech on socialism at Georgetown
University, and I listened attentively, hoping that his blossoming support
would allow him an opportunity to speak more explicitly. He said this: "So
the next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, remember this: I don't
believe the government should own the means of production." Paired with the
terms of endearment he reserved for NATO, it was difficult to read this as
anything but a dispiriting mangling of the socialist tradition. I was now
convinced, but not of what I originally hoped for. Instead, Bernie Sanders
was not a socialist. He said so himself.
But then-and the particulars of this are unnecessary to rehearse-things got
interesting. The most notable of these is that Bernie "took the gloves off."
Led by the brawler Jeff Weaver, my conception of the Sanders campaign as a
tomato can for Clinton's handlers dissolved. Maybe Sanders thought no one
wanted to hear about "the damn emails," but people were sure as hell going
to hear about Clinton's scandalous hobnobbing with Goldman Sachs as well as
the lavish sums she siphoned off from those who brought the economy to
catastrophe, and (in a display that, honest to God, made me pump my fist)
how Henry Kissinger was a mass murderer whom Sanders was proud (proud!) not
to call his friend.
The Clinton administration, which had for decades survived with its mythical
legacy intact as an exemplar of 1990s progress, underwent what seemed like
an overnight revision in the minds of many. Now it was the harbinger of
working-class immiseration, courtesy of NAFTA and welfare reform, and
carceral proliferation, courtesy of the newly notorious crime bill.
Genuinely spurred on by Black Lives Matter (whose mobilizations at early
Sanders events unequivocally benefited his campaign despite the unfortunate
outcry of his supporters at the time), Sanders told a debate crowd that
Clinton's use of the term "superpredator" was "a racist term, and [she] knew
it was a racist term." The secretary's "experience" was singled out as
mainly being the experience of turning once-stable nation states into
collapsed war fields and Islamic State strongholds-her crown jewel, Libya,
now an utter wreck devolving into ceaseless civil war with at least three
competing governments (if one includes Islamic State's control of Sirte).
As impressive as Sanders' offensive was, he was aided by the incompetence of
his opponents. One watched the spectacular display of liberalism's best and
brightest come apart at the seams. Bill Clinton could hardly make a public
appearance without displaying his inability to leave the race-baiting '90s
behind, chiding Black Lives Matter supporters while simultaneously
insisting, "We are all mixed-race."
Hillary, for her part, doubled down on her "realist" version of
heartlessness-insisting that single-payer healthcare would "never, ever"
happen and saying that free public higher education was somehow a giveaway
to the wealthy (using Donald Trump's children by way of example, as if
either Ivanka Trump or Chelsea Clinton-whose friendship with Ivanka has been
reportedly put on ice-were ever considering attending Penn State or CUNY
instead of Penn and Stanford). As the primaries began, even as Clinton
racked up (close) victories, the demographic splits were unbelievable.
"Don't trust anyone over 30" seemed to return emphatically.
As socialists, we have to give the Sanders campaign credit where it is due.
In its intermediary phase, it performed better than anticipated and gave the
radical left more room to maneuver than previously expected. It became a
condensed expression of antineoliberalism and antiausterity and a pole of
attraction that was amenable, if not consistently supportive, to socialist
politics. The difficulties and contradictions existed-and still remain.
Fredrik deBoer, in a review of Chris Hayes' "Twilight of the
Elites(http://www.pointofinquiry.org/chris_hayes_twilight_of_the_elites/) "
in The New Inquiry(http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/the-tryhards/) ,
described a "typical American liberal" like this: "all Karl Marx in
description, all Tom Daschle in prescription."
This issue continues to confront us as the primary obstacle to successful
politics-the gap between Sanders' refusal to call himself a capitalist and
his statement that the government "should not control the means of
production" is not simply a rhetorical one by a politician very careful with
his words. It responds to a genuine political dissonance, as seen in those
who can identify capitalism as a source of great misery and inequity but
cannot bear to face the obvious solution.
This internal conflict gives rise to deeply frustrating balancing acts. One
of the forms that it takes is the bizarre parsing of size, as though the
destructive capacities of capitalism are not built into its design but
simply a result of its unchecked growth. This dovetails neatly with the
fetishization of "small business" and denunciation of "monopolies."
The problem, these "typical American liberals" believe, is not capitalism
but its most gargantuan practitioners. We will downsize banks, they say,
incentivize small-scale entrepreneurship, contain multinational capital,
re-establish the priorities of national capital and so on. But leftists in
this scenario will constantly be engaged in a rear-guard action against
capitalism, chaperoning it and having to discipline it from time to time
while otherwise leaving it to its own devices.
Another manifestation of this form of denial arises in liberals' obsession
with "corruption," or the dreaded "buying" of the political process. This is
the scourge of lobbyists, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Goldman Sachs,
the American Legislative Exchange Council and all the rest. Here,
"corruption," which is a politically value-neutral term (meaning not
inherently a left-wing or right-wing position), stands in for a political
program. Like the problem of "bigness," the corruption problem is one of
"dirt," and what one must do is submit the political process to a baptismal
cleansing. Federally funded elections, the overturning of Citizens United,
financial transparency and "getting money out of politics" all herald a
politics of authenticity.
Again, leftists in this scenario remain on the back foot. Getting money out
of politics may curb "excesses," but it will not fundamentally rearrange
power relations. That would require its more frightening, redistributive
(or, God forbid, expropriative) opposite: getting politics into money. Put
succinctly, the billionaire class has too much money-whether they choose to
spend it on political influence or not. We should not simply build
roadblocks designed to entice them to spend it responsibly. We should spend
it for them.
There is a reason this confusion exists, and the reason is that there is no
viable or functioning political force arguing explicitly for a socialist
political program. It is what the radical left is hoping to get out of the
Sanders campaign and the millions of people whom it has revealed to have an
affinity for a left-of-center platform. But the time is now, and we must
value clarity.
The opportunistic straddling of social democracy and democratic socialism
(not to mention revolutionary socialism) cannot be kept up forever. Not only
is this unhealthy for a thriving radical left-which, understandable
enthusiasm aside, cannot afford to recoil from critiquing Sanders' massive
political deficiencies, of which his embrace of American empire is
particularly disastrous-but it dismantles the possibility of building the
base for such a movement, which can only be built by honestly and sincerely
articulating a coherent class consciousness.
While many are thrilled that, according to some measures, a majority of
young Americans support "socialism" over "capitalism," the significance of
this majority changes when one considers what many of these young people
think "socialism" is, describing it as essentially as Sanders does-as New
Deal liberalism.
This is not semantic pedantry nor the sectarian jostling of those preaching
"true" socialism. Understanding this is absolutely essential to build a
political organization capable of enacting a radical-left political program.
It is an error, in my estimation, to believe that social democracy
necessarily greases the wheels of socialism, that one comes to the radical
left more easily by moving through the center left. It seems just as likely
that social democracy acts instead as a foreclosure to the rise of the
radical left. Rather than moving through social democracy, the radical left
must move around it.
It is not a natural progression to move from the welfare state to the
workers' council. It must be articulated and promulgated clearly and openly.
History suggests the opposite trajectory will occur in the absence of a
countervailing political will.
Radical-left movements will veer toward social democracy, find it all too
comfortable and eventually eradicate themselves in the process. Without a
lengthy detour, one can simply follow the series of asinine splits and
mergers that led the once-powerful Communist Party of Italy to eventually
bequeath labor-thrashing Matteo Renzi. Or in an American context, one can
reach to the Democratic Socialists of America-a left-wing organization
currently endorsing Sanders-whose founding father Michael Harrington felt it
no political error to baldly state in the midst of the Cold War, "I am
anticommunist on principle."
At the level of Sanders' endgame strategy, this confusion leads to a
strategic fumbling. While acknowledging constantly on the campaign trail the
fundamentally antidemocratic nature of the Democratic Party, the campaign
still seeks refuge in the party platform. Even with the unexpectedly strong
selections for the committee, like Cornel West, who has called the sitting
president a war criminal, it still bespeaks an odd and misplaced faith.
The Democratic Party does not uphold the platform it has now, and it cannot
be expected to uphold the "most progressive platform ever"-which Sanders
seeks to institute.
I believe a stronger move would be to draft a radical-left platform while
refusing to contest the official Democratic Party line. This action could be
accompanied by a delegate walkout, to state that one has no reason to
believe that the Democratic Party is willing or able to carry out the
necessary political tasks, while also presenting an affirmative program to
the public-a platform in search of a party.
Cornel West, in noteworthy fashion, has followed this path by recusing
himself from supporting the party, appearing on the platform committee only
to raise hell on political untouchables (mainly Palestine) and leaving just
as quickly as he came to endorse Jill Stein.
It remains to be seen how raucous Philadelphia becomes for the Democratic
National Convention, but it appears that the convention won't be seriously
contested by the Sanders campaign. Sanders himself has already thrown many
of his delegates into an existential crisis by endorsing Clinton while
maintaining that he wants their presence on the floor. This posture-of the
independent candidate expressing a strategy of "takeover" of the existing
Democratic Party-has to be chalked up as proving the Trots right.
It is time for the radical left to open up and confront the conjuncture. Of
all the internal disputes about how to "approach" the Sanders campaign, the
best answer is to do so honestly-to neither burrow into the movement by
obscuring vanguardist pretensions nor to stand aside and berate its
shortcomings. One must say that the Sanders campaign's antiausterity premise
is one that should be solidified and fought for but that the campaign must
be built on and pushed farther to the left.
The difficulty should not be underestimated, but the left cannot avoid it.
The fundamental premise of Sanders' campaign-that his "political revolution"
can be accomplished within the confines of capitalism-is incorrect. That
will soon be clear. Sanders is going through his endgame. We are going
through an opening. Let us show the way to the great red beyond.
Nathan Fisher is a socialist organizer living in Los Angeles. He ran as a
delegate for Bernie Sanders in California Congressional District 28.
The Costs and Dangers of Climate Change Are Escalating
Time for Progressives to Take a Stand Against Politics of Hate
Turkey Closes Over 600 Schools, Fires Thousands of Teachers in Wake of
Failed Coup
Live at Truthdig: Questioning Republican Extremism, Clinton's Strategy and
Sanders' Legacy
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
C 2016 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
