Left-wing libertarian is another name for anarchist. The word anarchist
is used for a lot of groups with varying politics, but discipline is not
unheard of in anarchist circles either. I have made reference to this or
that anarchist organization before only to have the person I was talking
to guffaw and say, "Anarchist organization? Isn't that a contradiction
in terms?" Well, of course, it is not a contradiction in terms and if
someone thinks it is then that person knows nothing about the history of
anarchism. Some anarchist organizations require a high degree of
discipline from their members. Some of them have functioned as
underground paramilitary groups and were a major factor in the Spanish
civil war. There is no way that can be done without discipline. Anyway,
the main characteristic of left-wing libertarians is their analysis of
the state. They are anti-capitalist, but they do not see capitalism as
the main problem. They think that capitalism is a result of the state
and that it is an economic system commanded by the state. They hold that
in order to abolish capitalism the state has to be abolished first. They
are not all that clear about what they think the origins of the state
are. But putting all that aside and returning to the question of
democratic centralism and for the moment ignoring the actual
organizational principles of democratic centralism, what is the point of
having an organization at all if everyone in it can just go around and
take any position that they want to and disseminate all those varied
positions? I suppose that might be characteristic of some anarchist
groups that are not disciplined, like the Diggers, but what did they
ever do that had any effect? The diggers amounted to just a way to play
sharing games. I think I would have actually enjoyed living among the
Diggers out in San Francisco, but after a while I would get tired of
playing games and would have craved some kind of action. Maybe that is
why the Diggers fell apart.
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/6/2020 4:30 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
That is fascinating and it does explain the splits. It also clarifies for me,
personally, why those of us on the left can't organize to the point where we
can achieve major changes. I, for example, could never submit to the kind of
discipline that you describe. I suppose that if I were to try to describe
myself accurately, I'd call myself a left wing libertarian.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 4:13 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] ***UNCHECKED***
Re: Fight for gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave h
Actually, being a member of a democratic centralist organization is a constant
exercise in compromise, but there come times that compromise is not an option.
Here is how these splits usually come about. First, to be admitted to the party
it is required that you be in general agreement with the party's program. Keep
in mind that I said general. If you had to agree with every little position no
one would ever be recruited. It is usually assumed that if you are not in
general agreement you would not want to join in the first place, but it is
still a good idea that you understand what you are in general agreement with
before you are actually admitted. For that reason there are recruiting classes.
That is where the program of the party is explained in some detail so that you
will decide that you can live with anything you do disagree with before you
commit. There is also the youth group and the youth group has more relaxed
requirements for membership and is used as something of a training ground for
potential party members. I went through the Young Socialist Alliance myself,
but the time came that it had to be disbanded. The latest youth group of the
SWP is the Young Socialists.
Once in the party it is required that you support the entirety of the party's
program whether you completely agree with it or not. The requirement is that
the party turns the same face to the public at all times while free discussion
is allowed internally. That internal discussion must come at appropriate times
though. It would be disruptive for comrades to be constantly criticizing the
party to each other. The appropriate time is when a convention is periodically
called. Then every member is invited to submit articles to the discussion
bulletins. The discussion bulletins are distributed to each branch and a time
is set aside to discuss them, usually right after the weekly branch meeting.
When there are disagreements concerning some aspect of the party's program the
discussion will often include announcements of the formation of tendencies or
factions. Throughout the discussion period members will either align themselves
with one tendency or faction or not and when delegates to the national
convention are elected the delegates are proportionately elected according to
which tendency they have aligned with. The convention is the highest decision
making body within the party and once its decisions have been made every member
is bound by them whether they disagree with those decisions or not. Tendencies
are usually formed around minor matters and it is assumed that if the final
vote goes against the tendency that you belong to you can live with it. You can
always bring it up again when the next discussion period is called. Factions,
however, represent major differences and are formed to gain control of the
party. Factions are formed around some profound and principled issues. Splits
almost always come out of faction fights. Based on what I know of the internal
workings of the SWP I cannot help but think that this recent support for the
two state solution in Palestine must have been the result of a faction fight,
but I haven't heard of any splits that came out of it. A split comes about when
the losing faction just cannot live with the decision that has been made. They
have had their delegates to the convention and when the convention elected the
national committee all factions have been given proportional representation on
the national committee, but it is still required that no matter how strongly
you feel about your side of the faction fight you have to defend the position
that the party has taken to the public and if your differences are strong
enough that can be really difficult to do. A split usually occurs in one of two
ways. One is that the minority faction may break party discipline and start
promoting their side outside the party or continue to promote it within the
party at the inappropriate times. This can get the faction expelled. Upon
expulsion they form their own organization.
The other way that a split may occur is that the losing faction just resigns
all together and then form their own organization. What it comes down to is
that they no longer meet the requirement that they be in general agreement with
the party's program. This is how most of these various parties, collectives and
other groups, all of which call themselves socialist came into existence. Some
that come to mind that split from the SWP are Socialist Action, the Workers
World Party, the Sparticist League and the Freedom Socialist Party. There may
be others that I am not thinking of right now and I am not including groups
like the Trotskyist Organization - really imaginative name, isn't it? - because
it doesn't exist anymore. Then, of course, these organization have also
undergone splits of their own. I have been discussing this from the
perspective of the SWP though. The SWP itself came from a split from the
Communist Party and later entered the Socialist Party only to split from them
only a very few years later. Also, the Communist Party itself formed after
splitting from the Socialist Party in 1918 or 1919.
Without doubt if all of these groups would merge their strength would increase.
Mergers do happen too. The SWP itself formed when the Left Opposition, formerly
the Communist League of America, split from the Socialist Party and merged with
the Workers Party. I remember myself when the Revolutionary Marxists merged
with the SWP and even though I was far from a participant I remember following
the merger of the October League with smaller Maoist collectives to form the
Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist). But it still remains that if you have
really strong differences it is very difficult to function together in one
party. Democratic centralism gives a revolutionary party strength, but it also
tends to encourage splits
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/6/2020 12:15 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Roger,
What you describe, seems to explain why our country has had center right and
right of center governments for most of its history. People on the left are
unwilling to compromise. They feel that their ideology is so important, that
they are not willing to compromise in order to be pragmatic. The Marxists'
disdain for Democratic Socialism is one example. If one's goal is to help
people achieve a better life and if setting up a social welfare state within a
capitalist system is one way of doing that, even if it is far from the ideal
way, if it is the attainable way, then why not join together and do it. If one
looks at the world as it currently is, it is obvious that we're not going to
have state socialism in America, most probably not before our whole human
society is destroyed by climate change. So to me, it seems reasonable to work
for what we might possibly attain. Given the response of the establishment to
the Sanders campaign, it's unlikely that even that is possible.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 10:16 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Fight for gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave
health care!
I don't see how you can think it is underhanded. Its not like the purposes of
running a candidate is some kine of secret. It is a fully admitted vehicle for
disseminating ideas. As for getting together with one candidate, well, I am not
sure that can be done with the Green Party. There are some groups that do
support Green Party candidates and still call themselves revolutionary
socialists. Socialist Alternative is an example. But I am not so sure that they
are not drifting toward being social democrats by doing so. The Green Party, as
a whole, simply supports capitalism and that is kind of antithetical to
socialism. As for the socialist parties banding together to promote one
candidate, that is being tried in both Britain and Australia with the Socialist
Alliance, but the big trouble is that it is really hard to get them to agree on
a single program. After all, the reason they split into their various parties
over the years is because they had profound principled differences with each
other. But I remember taking that position myself in my distant past. As I was
meeting radical groups and trying to learn about them and figure out which I
most agreed with I did say to them that it would make more sense to me if they
could all merge into one organization and trade on the strength in numbers idea
instead of remaining weak by bickering with one another. I said that, after
all, we all have the same goals. I was told that it would be hard to even get
them all in the same room together. Then I saw what happened when they did get
in the same room. The Young Socialist Alliance was giving a presentation at
West Virginia State College and some members of the October League were in the
vicinity and decided to attend. The October League people were entirely too
contemptuous of the YSA to make any kind of common cause with them. Then
another time I actually invited a Communist Party member to a YSA meeting. He
was pretty polite, but he declined offers to work together and then later, in a
private letter to me, he made some pretty strenuous denunciations of the Fourth
International. Then when I was in the Committee Against Registration and the
Draft that organization kind of attracted communists like honey attracts flies.
There was the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist). There was the International
Anarchist Communist Federation. There was the Socialist Workers Party. There
was the Communist Workers Party. Not joining the coalition, but still orbiting
around it was the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Communist Party, USA and
the Communist Labor Party. I may be even forgetting some. Frankly, I think our
chapter of CARD was torn apart by the bickering. But what remains is that the
various parties have different messages that they want to disseminate. One
candidate would not be able to convey all of those messages because they tend
to be contradictory. Besides, some of those organizations have the message that
the elections should be boycotted in the first place. I had some arguments with
the RCP about that. They urge people to not vote as if that is some kind of
revolutionary statement.
They just don't seem to be aware that most people don't vote anyway and that is
never portrayed as a revolutionary statement. I know that it is not apathy
either, but it is always portrayed as apathy.
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/5/2020 9:16 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
No, certainly not. Organizing people around issues where their actions have a chance of
having an effect is not underhanded. Strikes aren't underhanded. Passive resistance isn't
underhanded. But running candidates when you know that there's no chance in hell that
they can win, that they can't even get on the ballot in most states, taking up people's
time and energy for what amounts to a "show candidacy", seems underhanded to
me. If all the various socialist parties and the Green party would join together and try
to form a real alternative party, that would make sense to me.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 9:06 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Fight for
gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave health care!
Then it must follow that any attempt to get out any kind of ideas is some
underhanded manipulative scam.
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/5/2020 8:41 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Roger,
Sorry, That was my interpretation of what the SWP is doing. I know you didn't
say that. You just said that the candidates running would be used as propaganda
to organize people. I wrote what that means to me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 8:30 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy]
***UNCHECKED*** Re: Fight for gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave health care!
Miriam, you misrepresent everything I said. The best way I can refute this is
to just refer you back to my last message. Reading that message shows that I
said nothing like you are claiming I said.
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/5/2020 4:24 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Isn't using the election as solely an opportunity for agitation and propaganda a rather
cynical way to treat the working people who might be attracted by that candidate's
campaign? It sounds like all those poor unsuspecting people who might be tricked into
getting involved, are being used as pawns to further the SWP's objectdives of which they
are unaware. "We're offering these pretend candidates so we can use their campaign
to seduce you into believing a philosophy which, we believe, is in your best interests in
the end. But we aren't going to tell you that we don't believe in this election, that
we're actually planning a revolution to overthrow this rotten system, and you might
become embroiled in this revolution, whether or not you originally planned to, and it
might become violent".
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 3:32 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Fight for
gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave health care!
You are completely missing the point that Alyson Kennedy has absolutely no
expectation or intention of becoming president. The ruling class would cancel
the election before they would let that happen.
Furthermore, if there was a realistic prospect for her being elected then the
class struggle would have had to sharpened to the point that we would either be
in the middle of a civil war or else we would be on the brink of it. Alyson's
candidacy is simply a move to take advantage of the bourgeois electoral system
to spread agitation and propaganda. But suppose that she did get elected and
suppose she survived the violent attacks that would be launched against her and
her supporters if she did get elected and then she took office. If she then
went ahead and merrily administered the bourgeois state she would have upon
that instant transformed into a social democrat. That would be a complete
betrayal.
Her job would be to give the bourgeois state its final kicks to ensure its
collapse. Then she would participate in building a new workers and farmers
state, possibly being a delegate to a new constitutional convention.
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/5/2020 11:56 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
The article states: "The Socialist Workers Party campaign is
grounded in the conviction that it is possible to emulate that
example(the Cuban Revolution). We can mobilize in our millions to
overthrow the dictatorship of the capitalist class here, take
power into our own hands and open the door to working people running society."
And then the article concludes, "Join us in campaigning for Alyson
Kennedy and Malcolm Jarrett, the working-class alternative in 2020!"
My problem with this article is that we can't take both approaches.
Either we advocate for Revolution and the replacement of our
current Ruling Class with a government which represents All the
People, or we send Alyson Kennedy and Malcolm Jarrett to be our
sacrificial offerings. That approach appears hopeless. Let's
suppose, and it is a real long shot, that Alyson Kennedy and
Malcolm Jarrett squeak out a victory, and find themselves in the White House.
Then what?
I mean what do we Revolutionaries do? We have just won the top
two offices in the nation, and the most influential top dogs in all the World.
Are they prepared to lead a Revolution from within the
Establishment's System? Do they attempt to swim upstream and make
what social changes they can make? To me it is a lose lose
situation. The fact is that we live in, and have lived in from the beginning,
in a Class System.
This nation of the people never set out to be the government of
All the People.
Although I have no dog in this presidential fight, I plan to vote
for Bernie Sanders. Not because I think that he will win, or even
if the Heavens opened up and God smote all his opponents and
Bernie, like David with his sling, did win, but because I believe
it is my only way of spitting in the Establishment's eye. Bernie
will be as unable to return America to the New Deal Days, as would
Alyson Kennedy and Malcolm Jarrett.
But on the other hand, if we are truly serious about a People's
Revolution, then we need to stop pretending that we can "make a
difference" through tucking a few Progressives into the System.
It's like tossing red meat to a pack of wild dogs.
As a defender of the American People and their Rights and Dignity,
I am faced with deciding whose laws I must obey. Do I take the
safer path and obey the laws that have been bought and paid for to
protect the properties and positions of the long established Ruling Class?
Or do I obey those basic laws that defend the dignity and security
and health, and all the Rights that belong to First Class Citizens?
This is no easy decision. But it is one that every Citizen must
make, because we cannot serve two Masters. Either we support the
right of a few to own us, or we defend the Right to Human Dignity
by All the People. This constitution we live under was created
back when we were a collection of 13 Colonies and an Agrarian Society.
The Document was truly revolutionary in its day. It declared that
the Colonists were no longer the economic slaves of the King of
England. In the situation the Colonists found themselves, there
was no misunderstanding over whether they could somehow take over
the government and make changes to existing laws. There was only
one of two roads, compliance or revolution.
The ensuing struggle was costly for many Landholders. Many chose
to duck and cover, hoping the King would reward them once the
uprising was quashed.
While Times are very different today, we live in an Urban Society
and number 50 states and over 300 million People, we are still
faced by the same two roads. We can duck and cover and accept what is "given"
us by our Ruling Class, hoping they make wise choices that somehow
include us, or we can set them aside, thanking them for their long
years at the helm of our Ship of State, but recognizing that they
have outlived their day, and that they have become far too self serving.
But if we do the latter, we must realize that once declared, the
New Revolution must follow. Are we ready for it?
Carl Jarvis
On 3/5/20, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://themilitant.com/2020/02/29/fight-for-govt-funded-cradle-t
o
- g r ave-health-care/ Fight for gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave
health care!
article
Vol. 84/No. 9
March 9, 2020
The U.S. government, the most powerful imperialist power on the
planet, like every other capitalist power around the world, is
far from prepared for the spread of coronavirus. The virus is
new, no one is immune, and it will take time to develop an antidote.
The rulers in China and Iran tried to pretend things weren’t so
bad and working people are paying for it. The administration in
Washington tells us they’ve got everything in hand and complain
the media is trying to make coronavirus “look as bad as possible.”
The deadly impact of the virus will fall overwhelmingly on
working people in the U.S., as it does elsewhere, exacerbating
the broader social, economic and moral crisis of capitalism bearing down on us.
Millions of workers already confront the declining availability
of health care. Hospitals have been closing in rural areas and
working-class neighborhoods, where the owners decide they aren’t
making enough profit. The system of health insurance in the U.S.
— whether it’s “Obamacare,” private health insurance or the
Medicare-for-all insurance schemes promoted by a wing of the
Democrats — is designed to guarantee a profit for hospital bosses
and drug and insurance companies, not to provide the health care
working people need and deserve.
If we can’t afford to pay the rising costs they charge for
premiums, deductibles or copays, we have to go without something
that should be a basic human right.
The capitalist rulers consider the provision of health care to
workers a nonproductive expense. Hospital bosses are notorious
for transporting homeless people seeking care out of the city and
dumping them. The capitalist rulers seek to impose the
responsibility for medical care onto individual workers and our
families. And if you don’t change your lifestyle — quit smoking,
lose weight, etc. — they want to make you pay more. You’re on your own.
Health care is social right
Health care is a social question. The working class and our
unions need to fight for government-funded cradle-to-grave health
care for all. Our labor produces all the wealth, more than enough
to provide care for all, for a lifetime. The problem is the
employers expropriate that wealth for themselves. So they don’t
have to worry about the costs of getting treatment.
Health care as a social right can only be won by class struggle,
including breaking from all the capitalists’ parties, which
insist that the health insurance racket is untouchable. It will
take massive struggles by workers and our allies to take the
hospitals and drug companies out of the hands of the capitalists
who run them for profit and organize to run them under workers
control in the interest of all. But it can be done.
Revolutionary Cuba is the one country in the world where health
care is not a commodity, where the surplus workers and farmers
produce is used to provide lifelong, preventative health care for every person.
And where thousands of volunteer medical workers provide much
needed care throughout the world, treating all they look after
with dignity and respect. A vivid account is provided in the
recently published Red Zone: Cuba and the Battle Against Ebola in West Africa.
The volunteers’ internationalism, author Enrique Ubieta
writes, “is an expression of their revolutionary humanism.”
As Che Guevara said, to be a revolutionary doctor you have to
make a revolution.
Revolution transformed working people in Cuba This is only
possible because Cuban workers and farmers made a revolution and
the government today is in their hands. Making that revolution
transformed working people. They simply look at the problems they
confront — from the U.S. rulers’ economic war against them to the
threat of coronavirus — as the responsibility of the whole people.
Whatever they face — a hurricane, a threat of disease, or
anything else — they prepare, mobilize the whole people and
resources of their government, and take it on.
The Socialist Workers Party campaign is grounded in the
conviction that it is possible to emulate that example. We can
mobilize in our millions to overthrow the dictatorship of the
capitalist class here, take power into our own hands and open the
door to working people running society. Join us in campaigning
for Alyson Kennedy and Malcolm Jarrett, the working-class alternative in 2020!
article end
list of 4 items
Audio version
Share
list end
RELATED ARTICLES
article
Capitalist economies wobble as coronavirus cases spread Media
worldwide headlined the news Feb. 24 with reports that
coronavirus infections and deaths were spreading outside China,
where it originated, with spikes in South Korea, Japan, Iran and
northern Italy. Capitalist governments around the world either
admit their health… article end IN THIS ISSUE Front Page Articles
list of 6 items • ‘We need a labor party, independent of the bosses’
• Capitalist two party system’s stability won’t be restored • New
Zealand protesters say ‘Abortion is not a crime’
• Striking Asarco miners protest bosses’ union-busting attacks •
Federal court says Florida law gutting felons’ right to vote is
unconstitutional • Over a million Syrians forced to flee Idlib in
face of regime’s offensive list end Feature Articles list of 1
items • New book on Ebola launched at Cuban tropical medicine
school list end Also In This Issue list of 8 items • Kennedy:
‘All workers should back Asarco strike’
• Back Socialist Workers Party 2020 campaign Contribute to $25,000 fund!
• Families, former inmates, SWP protest conditions at Georgia
jail • Capitalist economies wobble as coronavirus cases spread •
Women in Iraq say no to segregation of protesters • ‘Communism is
not a doctrine but a movement’
• Bosses step up spying on workers — on and off the job • Join
2020 May Day international brigade to Cuba!
list end
Editorials
list of 1 items
• Fight for gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave health care!
list end
Books of the Month
list of 1 items
• ‘Second-class status of women arose with class society’
list end
25, 50 and 75 years ago
Letters
Corrections
main region end
© Copyright 2020 The Militant - 306 W. 37th Street, 13th floor
- New York, NY 10018 - themilitant@xxxxxxx Cookies This site
uses cookies to improve your experience.
Learn more.
Okay, thanks
--
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
