Capitalism and Socialism cannot coexist.
Socialism and democracy can coexist.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Carl Jarvis
On 6/29/19, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The answer to your question is that you just go ahead and organize that
socialist party outside of the existing power structure. The question,
however, seems to be assuming an incorrect idea of what should be done
with that socialist party organized outside the capitalist electoral
system. First, running socialists inside a capitalist party defeats the
whole idea of socialism. How is it going to bring about socialism to
work for and ensure that a capitalist party continues in power? Then,
since the electoral system is rigged to ensure that only capitalist
parties ever get elected then what is the point of running candidates
who will compete for votes with the capitalist parties? If a socialist
party, socialist in reality and not just in name, runs candidates the
whole point in running them is to get a platform to get out socialist
ideas. That is, take advantage of those cracks in the system to turn it
against itself. The main goal of a real socialist party, though, is to
encourage and help organize strikes, marches, demonstrations and other
forms of mass action. Again, when you try to change the system from
within the system you are the one who gets changed, not the system. That
has been proven over and over so many times that it is amazing that
anyone still tries to change the system from within it. But people still
do and they just keep failing.
---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/26/2019 9:48 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
This article makes Roger's case for him. There are some problems like, in
America, how could you convince people to vote for open borders and,
given
our election laws, how do you actually construct a powerful working
socialist party outside of the existing structure?
Miriam
Sanders's Speech Presents a Conundrum for New Left's Socialist Strategy
Sen. Bernie Sanders delivers remarks at a campaign function at George
Washington University
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders delivers remarks at
a
campaign function in the Marvin Center at George Washington University on
June 12, 2019, in Washington, D.C.
Sarah Silbiger / Getty Images
By Ashley Smith, Truthout Published June 25, 2019
In the U.S., the failures of capitalism are being refracted in the race
for
the White House, just as they were in 2016. On one side, President Trump
is
rallying his predominantly middle-class voters to re-elect him based on
his
program of economic nationalism and bigotry that has wreaked havoc at
home
and abroad.
On the other side, Democrats are in a battle for their party's
presidential
nomination to challenge the bigot billionaire in 2020. Predictably, the
party has banded together, at least for now, around the establishment's
favored candidate, Joe Biden, who defends the existing capitalist order,
albeit with minor reforms.
His challengers, however, have moved to the left, adopting (however
honestly
or dishonestly) much of the program Sen. Bernie Sanders put forward in
2016,
while at the same time, rejecting Sanders's self-proclaimed democratic
socialism. They all know, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, that to win
the
party's support if Biden stumbles, they must toe its pro-capitalist line.
Worried about Sanders and the growing popularity of socialism, Trump and
bottom-dwellers for the Democratic nomination like Colorado Gov. John
Hickenlooper have red-baited Sanders, trying to discredit his politics by
associating him with Stalinist regimes. Recently, Sanders took his
detractors head-on in a landmark speech at George Washington University.
He argued that the threat from authoritarian oligarchs like Trump cannot
be
defeated by centrist neoliberals like Biden and Hickenlooper, but only by
democratic socialism. He defined that as an extension of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's New Deal through a new economic bill of rights that would
include a right to a decent job, health care and secure retirement.
Sanders also integrated the fight against climate change and all forms of
bigotry as essential parts of the struggle for socialism. He underscored
that he could not win any of this on his own but only as part of a
political
revolution in which millions of people join the political process, take
over
the Democratic Party and win control of the government to transform the
priorities of U.S. society.
Predictably, the establishment in the media and both parties brushed off
the
speech. The Washington Post's Robert J. Samuelson called Sanders a
"refugee
from the 1930s." Senator Warren - who recently proclaimed she's
"capitalist
to my bones," perhaps an electorally foolish mistake that may alienate
Sanders's supporters - reacted with laughter when asked about his speech.
Some on the left have also dismissed the speech as merely Sanders's
attempt
to woo radicals back into the Democratic Party. Others breathlessly
celebrated it as the most profound and transformative speech since those
delivered by Martin Luther King Jr. and rejected criticisms of Sanders as
missing the forest for the trees.
The left should not reduce its role to cheerleading Sanders's speech and
gloss over its weaknesses, because what's at stake is the politics, aims
and
strategy of the new socialist movement.
But these responses on the left fail to grasp the contradictory nature of
the Sanders campaign, his electoral strategy in the Democratic Party, and
his conception of democratic socialism. In contrast to Sanders's
ultra-left
detractors, radicals must appreciate that, for the second consecutive
presidential primary, an open advocate of socialism is in the running for
the Democratic nomination.
Of course, those who credit Sanders for creating the new socialist
movement
are exaggerating his impact; his popularity was made possible by the
Great
Recession, the capitalist parties' bailout of banks, and the popular
resistance to austerity and scapegoating. Nevertheless, it is important
to
recognize that Sanders has encouraged this resistance and given a name to
its politics - socialism - and helped fuel the rise of the Democratic
Socialists of America (DSA).
We should celebrate his attacks on "unfettered capitalism," the
oligarchic
billionaire class, authoritarians and fascists, as well as his
full-throated
defense of socialism as means to achieve freedom for workers and
oppressed
people.
Moreover, Sanders's proposed economic bill of rights raises the stakes
for
all of us to fight for an agenda that puts people before profit. That a
mainstream candidate is putting forth such demands should be grasped as
an
opportunity and used to advance social and class struggle in order to
achieve them.
At the same time, though, the left should not reduce its role to
cheerleading Sanders's speech and gloss over its weaknesses, because
what's
at stake is not Sanders per se, but the politics, aims and strategy of
the
new socialist movement. His speech exposed three key problems we must
overcome in order to win the systemic change we so desperately need.
The Democratic Party: The Graveyard of the Left
First, Sanders's strategy of pursuing a political revolution through the
Democratic Party, however much it may raise the profile of socialism, is
a
trap. As everyone from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to many (if not most)
members of DSA recognize, the Democratic Party is a capitalist and
imperialist party, not a labor party rooted in unions like that led by
Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.
The Democratic Party is a capitalist and imperialist party, not a labor
party rooted in unions.
It is tightly controlled by a bureaucracy and elected officials, both of
which depend on the bosses for funding. That does not mean it is no
different than the Republican Party, which has historically been the
capitalists' "A Team" that openly serves their interests and espouses
conservatism.
The Democrats are the ruling class's liberal "B Team" that appeals to
workers and oppressed groups by promising change within the system.
Capitalists send them onto the field only when the "A Team" has played
badly
and are in danger of losing.
The Democrats' function in the political game is two-fold: to co-opt the
left and prevent it from building a workers' party; and to confine class
and
social struggle to tinkering with capitalism instead of replacing it with
socialism. That's why Marxists have always called the Democratic Party
the
graveyard of social movements and the left.
Every attempt to use the capitalist's "B Team" has backfired, from the
Communist Party's popular front during the Great Depression, to Michael
Harrington's realignment strategy that tried to turn it into a labor
party
in the 1960s and 1970s, to the Maoists' similar effort in Jesse Jackson's
Rainbow Coalition during the 1980s. Each time the left was co-opted,
movements demobilized in support of a party that then took them for
granted
and moved to the right, betraying their promises in the process.
Today, the Democrats are in a stronger position to co-opt the new
socialist
left. As Kim Moody documents,
The party has become a well-funded, professionalized, multitiered
hierarchy
capable of intervening in elections at just about every level. It selects
candidates, provides funding, furnishes endorsements, offers media
relations, and supplies computer and digital campaign and
get-out-the-vote
services. In Congress and most state legislatures, its leaders impose a
high
level of party discipline, such that for the last two decades 90 percent
of
floor votes in both houses have been along strict party lines.
Sanders's run in 2016 exemplifies the ruling class's stranglehold on the
party. Although he electrified a new generation with his call for
socialism
and did better than he or anyone expected, he was, in the end, stymied by
the bureaucracy, elected officials and capitalist funders. While they
treated him politely in public, they ensured that their anointed
candidate,
Hillary Clinton, won the nomination.
The Democratic establishment is even more prepared to neutralize Sanders
this time. Now backing Biden, it has encouraged a host of pro-capitalist
progressives to split Sanders's vote and greenlit Hickenlooper and
others'
redbaiting. The party will try to persuade voters desperate to kick Trump
out of office to play it safe, take no risks on Sanders's socialism, and
vote for Biden or some other "electable" candidate who is moderate enough
to
win over conservative voters.
Even Anita Hill, who suffered the worst sexist discrimination from Biden
and
has every reason to oppose him, has accepted this logic, telling
reporters,
"Of course, I could" vote for him. These tactics have successfully driven
down Sanders's poll numbers over the last couple of months with Warren in
particular gaining at his expense, proving yet again the difficulty of
advancing socialism in a capitalist party.
Socialists, regardless of their position on Sanders's campaign, must
unite
to organize an exit from the Democratic Party and build a new independent
socialist party.
While DSA has endorsed Sanders, its left wing understands that the
Democratic Party cannot be taken over, but rather must be replaced.
Instead
of backing third parties now, though, one of its most prominent caucuses,
Bread and Roses, supports a dirty break strategy of using the Democrats'
ballot line to run socialist candidates, project its program, encourage
class struggle, win office and build an organization within the Democrats
to
eventually split off and set up a new workers' party.
While this strategy has led to some stunning breakthroughs, like the
election of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress, as well as
candidates
for state and city council offices, Sanders does not support it. Instead
of
advocating taking over the party, he has already promised that if he
loses,
he will campaign for whichever Democrat wins the nomination in the
general
election.
The left must challenge his argument, especially because he has the
greatest
influence over the trajectory of our new movement. To avoid the fate of
our
left-wing predecessors, socialists, regardless of their position on
Sanders's campaign, must unite to organize an exit from the Democratic
Party
and build a new independent socialist party.
Socialism Not Liberalism
Second, as part of his accommodation to the Democratic Party, Sanders -
who
used to extol Eugene Debs's Socialist Party as his model - now explicitly
associates socialism with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. While he
may
do that to reach a popular audience, as some on the left have argued, it
both sows illusions about Roosevelt's program and limits the horizons of
socialism to, at best, reformist management of capitalism.
Let's be clear: Roosevelt was, as he declared, "the best friend the
profit
system ever had" and the "savior" of "the system of private profit and
free
enterprise." FDR's aim was not to institute socialism through the New
Deal,
but use government programs to revive the system, stabilize it through
social reform, and co-opt a workers' movement that threatened to break
with
the two-party system and challenge capitalist rule.
As much as Sanders raises expectations for social reform, he narrows the
vision of democratic socialism below even that of social democracy.
Even FDR's call for an economic bill of rights, which Sanders
resuscitates,
never threatened to nationalize capitalism's means of production. That's
why
169 capitalist countries - including Germany, Australia and France -
ratified the U.N. version of it called "The International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."
That's where many on the left are mistaken, confusing liberal tinkering
with
actual socialism. Norman Thomas, the longtime leader of the reformist
Socialist Party, was right when he wrote, "What Mr. Roosevelt has given
us
is State capitalism: that is to say, a system under which the State steps
in
to regulate and in many cases to own, not for the purpose of establishing
production for use but rather for the purpose of maintaining in so far as
may be possible the profit system with its immense rewards of private
ownership and its grossly unfair division of the national income."
Thus, as much as Sanders raises expectations for social reform, he
narrows
the vision of democratic socialism below even that of social democracy to
New Deal liberalism. Classic social democracy, whatever its weaknesses,
at
least promised to use nationalization to socialize and democratize
control
of the economy, whereas liberalism merely promises adjustments to
capitalism, not its transformation into workers' democratic control of
society, which is the goal of socialism.
Compromising Socialist Internationalism
Third, Sanders's speech failed to uphold socialist internationalism on
today's central questions of immigration and U.S. imperialism. This
failure
flows from his collaboration with an imperialist party, as well as the
nationalist logic of social democracy, which has always put use of the
state
for domestic reform for workers at home above international solidarity.
It
was thus not an accident that he delivered the speech before a sea of
U.S.
flags.
Of course, Sanders rightly denounces Trump's attacks on immigrants. But
he
opposes open borders as an idea hatched by the Koch brothers, and instead
supports the Democrats' preferred "solution" to the "problem" of
undocumented immigrants - Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR). At
best,
this is a lesser evil; it includes increased policing of the border to
stop
further immigration, onerous conditions for legalization, and
pro-corporate
guest worker programs.
As Lucy Herschel argues, in practice, this policy was responsible for "a
reign of terror on immigrant communities that former President Obama
himself
elevated to a high art during his eight years in office. For the past
decade, CIR has required the deportation of more than 100,000 people a
year,
the detention of hundreds of thousands more in inhuman conditions and the
terrorization of millions of families - all in exchange for comprehensive
legislation that never came and now seems further away than ever."
Socialists should reject CIR and instead demand amnesty for all
undocumented
immigrants and open borders. Our slogans should be those Jesse Myerson
advocates: "No penalties, no electric fences, no drone surveillance, no
papers, no fear. Instead, universal human rights, consecrated in
struggle,
enforced by solidarity. The unification of the world's workers demands
this."
Such internationalism also requires opposition to imperialism - something
Sanders strangely left out of his speech. Socialists must remember that
the
U.S. is not just any other state. It runs an informal empire that
reproduces
and enforces global capitalism; it is in competition with other
imperialist
powers, especially China; and it oppresses weaker nations throughout the
world. Under the misnomer "national defense," Washington's war machine
gobbles up hundreds of billions of dollars a year on conventional and
nuclear weapons, troops, and over 800 military bases around the world.
Of course, Sanders has rightly opposed George W. Bush's occupation of
Iraq,
Saudi Arabia's U.S.-backed war in Yemen, and Trump's threat of war on
Iran.
But he voted for the war in Afghanistan and war budgets that funded the
occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Underlying this mixed record is his mistaken belief that the U.S., under
progressive leadership, could play a positive role in the world,
especially
in forging what he calls an international alliance in defense of
democracy
against authoritarian rulers like China's Xi Jinping, who he explicitly
singles out in his speech. Such a position risks giving left-wing cover
for
Washington's confrontation with Beijing, an inter-imperial rivalry driven
not by the politics of either regime, but their capitalist economies'
competition for domination over the world market.
The new socialist movement should instead follow the lead of Martin
Luther
King, Jr. who viewed the U.S. state not as a potentially benign force,
but
"the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." King further
called
attention to how the massive expenditure on the war machine killing
people
abroad drains funds and resources that could otherwise go to workers and
the
oppressed at home.
That's why he spoke out against the Vietnam War and argued that the poor
people's movement he initiated near the end of his life had to oppose
what
he called the "triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and
militarism." The new left should heed this call and build an independent
mass movement to confront all of the system's inequalities at home and
abroad.
To win that struggle, we must build a new party of our own, uphold fierce
internationalist opposition to all imperialisms, organize international
solidarity from below, and challenge both parties of capital not only in
the
ballot box, but more importantly, in the streets and in workplaces where
we
have the power not only to win a political and social revolution for
socialist democracy in the U.S., but throughout the world.
We don't have much time left.
