Can Our Revolution Use Elections to Organize?
Posted by Mike E on September 7, 2009
TellNoLies writes:
“I think that the revolutionary left in the US needs to develop serious methods of work in the electoral arena, but I think that it needs to do so precisely from the point of view of “organizing a revolutionary movement.”
It is hard to disagree with this, but perhaps that’s because its hard to know precisely what it means. Let me try to solicit TNL’s deepening of his point.
Here is my preliminary “hit”:
I think there is a difference between attempting to do electoral work to build (attract and reinvent) a revolutionary movement…. and acting within an electoral arena when you have a real, existing revolutionary movement.
I believe if you take today’s revolutionary forces (at their current strength, at their current level of clarity, unity and organization) and lead them into the Democratic party, they won’t emerge from there with a larger revolutionary movement. They will probably just disappear there.
And if you seek to draw the oppressed into “political life” by making it your work to registering and mobilize them to vote for Democrats — I think you are contributing to putting people on a bad road.
In short: I think it is a bad idea.
It is the politics of “entrism” being advocated — of a particular American kind. It’s the idea that you can enter a large mass party (because the people are there)… and then, using various tactics and work attract people to a far more radical politics than defines that mass party. (Radical, in this sense, means “change at the root” — i.e. sweeping and fundamental changes that require changes in who actually holds power, not just various reforms or concessions.)
If anyone has a plan for successful “entrism” in the United States — let’s hear it.
I think the experience of 60′s forces entering the Jesse Jackson campaign (1984, 1988) is a negative one — and not one where they emerged with new independent structures, mass connections, or a new audience. The complaint of these forces is that Jesse Jackson declined to build a separate structure for the “RAinbow Coalition” beyond his own personalist apparatus…. well no shit. He wasn’t about to build you a social democratic current to lead out of the dems into a third party.
I think (if we are going to talk about “serious” electoral approaches) we need to break the possibilities and experiences down:
In It to Overturn It
There is a method where one enters into the electoral arena to conduct political work of winning people away from parliamentary democracy and toward socialist revolution. I think an example worth examining is the German Communist Party (1924-1933) which, despite the known weaknesses of their “social-fascism” line, did use the electoral arena (including a sizable chunk of the Reichstag parliament) to expose the Weimar Republic relentlessly — and (in their own flawed way) seek to prepare for a socialist revolution.
They had millions of supporters — and so this was not a mini-micro effort (like the Workers World Party, Socialist Workers Party or Party for Socialism and Liberation in the U.S. which have been fairly universally ineffective). It actually was a campaign waged block by block, and then in the parliament itself — in living politics… in headlines, with massive votes and clashes. And it was a way to engage their supporters in sharp contests. And the voting itself was (as has been the case historically) a real way of gauging the actual mood of the people — and how many were moving toward a revolutionary pole. The KPD emerged from the revolutionary upsurge with a massive base in the working class — and then used various means (including trade union activity and elections) to contest other parties and promote their communist politics.
In Europe, it is significant that a number of left parties have tried to build themselves electorally without such a base — the MLPD in Germany, and the PTB in Belgium… with truly dismal results (1% of the vote or whatever — often in sharp contrast to their hopes).
In France, the so-called “extreme left” has done a little better — but that is mainly because they have stepped into the shoes of the vanishing Communist Party (which once commanded 20% of the vote, before disappearing into its own mini-black-hole). Similarly, in reunited Germany, there was a Party of Socialism — which picked up chunks of the old East German ruling party… i.e. absorbing both the apparatus and the real liabilities of that previous party.
And (of course) the degree to which any of these forces are seeking to subvert bourgeois parliamentarism by their electoral work is subject to critical analysis (i suspect it is a simply “nope.”)
In Norway, the new Red party (after dropping the ML of the AKP, and going further toward traditional electoral structures and politics) does not seem to have done much better (with Klassenkampen newspaper putting them at 1.1% today, down from the 3% they were thought to command last spring (after their coming out days).
In other words, the KPD in Germany was able to do a “serious” electoral campaign (to expose the system) because they entered the Weimar Republic with a serious revolutionary base. And the attempts (in modern Europe at least) to forge a left base through electoralism have not fared well at all.
There are some other experiences worth mentioning — in countries where electoralism was far more novel than in the U.S. and Europe (and so had a bit of a radical cache and appeal, among the newly awakening.) And the examples are Tsarist Russia, 1990s feudo-monarchist Nepal, and the fight for voting rights in the Jim Crow South.
The Bolsheviks participated in a Duma that had not previously existed, and they did so on the basis of an aparatus and mass support that allowed them to truly represent the working people in the Duma. And it was under repressive conditions where their electoral work and their subsequent organizing from the Duma were a precious way to conduct politics in a country where their politics were criminalized.
In Nepal, the CPN(M)’s electoral work (especially in Rukum and Rolpa) played a key role in preparing the basis for the launching of the peoples war (as did their vigorous propaganda campaign around freeing Shining Path leader Gonzalo, after 1992.) Both efforts promoted a set of quite revolutionary demands, and put the issue of popular power and peoples war at the center of their politics (and prominent in Nepali politics). But this too was done after an upsurge had created a very radical mass movement — seeking a form, and an outlet….since the anti-monarchist upsurge of the early 1990s was precisely the basis for the electoral campaign of the mid 1990s, and then the insurrectionary start of the peoples war that followed.
And, I would suggest, the campaign for voting rights in the South “divided into two” — with some forces seeking a road into the system, and others ultimately being “in it to overthrow it” and developing a quite radical Black Liberation struggle on the foundation of earlier civil rights work. And in that case, at least, they didn’t already have revolutionary forces when they “got in it” — but build such a base in the course of the living experience.
I’m suggesting that there are ways that a revolutionary mass movement can exploit the electoral arena — to conduct a subversive politics of exposing that political system (and the nature of various forces, and the nature of radically different program). But that, in many ways, our experience (as a world movement) suggests that this is unlikely as a tactic for building a revolutionary mass movement — but more a way of consolidating it, deepening its organized ties to its own social base, and attempting to reach out to win over new forces in a exposing “long march through the system.”
Tipping Their Balance at a Crucial Moment
There are also times when a revolutionary movement might actively prefer one bourgeois government over another… for very sharp, short-term, and very practical reasons. There are reasons why a social democratic government in Germany might be preferable (for forces preparing a revolutionary uprising) to a Hitlerite communist-decapitating government. And so there are moments when one might consciously and deliberately swing real social weight into the conflicts of largely-hostile forces.
But that too requires a pre-existing movement (that is real, self-conscious, and revolutionary). It requires having social weight — and the ability to negotiate terms, and keep your forces distinct, and continue to prepare for revolution (rather than falling into just perpetually “defending bourgeois democracy” as some endless strategic rut.)
In other words, i think those kinds of moments are relatively rare…. the Allende moments, the 1930 in Germany moments, the Kornilov-at-the-gates-in-1917 moments — and intersect in complex ways with the possible emergence of a revolutionary situation.
Helping the Democrats Whig-Out
If you conceive of a revolutionary united front capable of seizing and holding power in the U.S. — and you imagine the demographic support you would need…. you get (more or less) the social forces who now make up the Democratic party base. (Plus, one might hope a chunk of farmers — who are largely trapped these days in some version of republican politics… or worse.)
And to imagine a revolution in the U.S., that Democratic party has to shatter, lose its base and become profoundly de-legitimized as the alternative to the ugliest, racist, uber-capitalist right.
Forgive my history-geek reference: but i personally see an analogy (in American history) in the way the status-quo Whig party shattered on the eve of the Civil War, and a new (more radical and ultimately revolutionary) Republican Party emerged on the basis of opposing the dominance of the slaveocracy.
In some ways, that kind of repolarization has to happen in the U.S. — where the social base of the Democrats simply abandon them, and recongeal in a number of other movements, which in turn need to be unified around a revolutonary program of transitional demands in the midst of a profound social crisis.
That’s what the pre-history of a revolution looks like in a future America.
And the question is, how do we prepare now, in ways that help the repolarization of American politics to include a powerful revolutionary pole attracting millions?
The Sterility of Preaching One-to-Many
I participated (from 1972 on) in the RCP’s various boycott-the-election campaigns. I thought it was correct to abstain from supporting the Democrats — not just when they were pointmen for war and imperialism (like Hubert Humphrey in 1968) but also when they were trying to absorb the energy of more progressive movements (like George McGovern in 1972).
However….
I have to say that the RCP’s boycott campaigns were among the most ineffectual efforts (of an often ineffectual movement). Often the RCP was involved in loose alliances with broader sections of the people — and over and over, those links simply failed at election time… and the progressive-but-nonrevolutionary forces simple shifted from protest to electoralism (for the presidential season).
The anti-election boycott campaigns were typically unable to draw support –no matter how they were done. And became small strictly-communist propaganda efforts in the very narrowest sense of that term.
A couple of us from the Kasama Project went down to the Chicago celebration after Obama’s victory… not to participate (which we couldn’t and didn’t) but to observe and learn (who came, the mood, the expectations). And there was a very small knot of RCP supporters conducting agitation against Obama — and it was hard to imagine anything more isolated and ineffective than what they were trying to do, in that crowd, on that night of all nights. And for me, that captures the longer history of those efforts — which sought to call out the obvious and real problems of participating in bourgeois electoralism, in a real-world context where people saw little real alternative.
What was wrong with this approach? It was rather profoundly separate from the people — including the relatively radical and progressive people. It took an approach that was highly appropriate at the revolutionary high tide of 1968 and sought to (mechanically) pursue “fidelity” to the form…. long after that high tide receded. And it was therefore a ritual of a faithful few, without a “mass line,” and without a prospect of impact (beyond attracting individuals who agreed). And it was a “fetish of the word” — thinking that large numbers of people would “learn” deep and difficult truths by being told them (by revelation) — when in fact the very experience of 1968 showed that such learning takes place on the large and living canvas of political life — especially when sections of the people are themselves active around key heartfelt demands (like ending a war, or demanding an end to second class status).
* * * * * * *
I confess that my views on this are still primitive… but I do want to put forward some tentative thoughts:
1) We can’t electorally transform the society in the ways the oppressed of the world need. And we need to be clear on that among ourselves and work (specifically) to spread that understanding (in real ways) broadly among millions of people. And being clear is not just a kneejerk assertion (or a traditional belief) but a living analysis that needs to be deeped in real time.
2) We need an independent revolutionary movement able to take initiative in long term strategic ways. This means a movement whose defining unity is a profound radical change in society — toward a socialism that is not conceived as “welfare state writ large” or a bit of nationalization. A movement for the deep structural and uncompromising uprooting of empire, racism, the inequality of women, police brutality, social conservative norms and the exploitation of one human by another. Independence and initiative mean a separate apparatus, identity, program, and agenda.
3) I believe (pretty viscerally) that “entering the Democratic Party” (in some strategic “inside/outside” way) — latching social movements onto Democratic electoral strategies, critically “supporting” imperialist politicians, seeking our contacts in the process of Democratic electoral work, and so on — is not a strategy for moving the Democrats to the left — but of moving revolutionaries to the right. I don’t think we will build any prerequisite independent revolutionary movement that way.
4) I think we need a strategy that combines creative radical organizing around key faultline issues for struggle with the system and its enforcers (over demands, conditions, outrages) — with living independent communist work of analysis, agitation and exposure.
In particular (and this is something I plan to elaborate) we need to build a living “political center” for that kind of work — attracting and speaking to a broadly radical audience in a communist voice — and not a new “mini-party” of the typical sectarian kind. Organizing projects, propaganda projects, theoretical projects, unified by a conception and a living dialogue… leading towards a radical force that can act (in real political life, in real time) in a way that prepares the people (and itself) for initiating truly revolutionary shifts of power and policy in society. This can’t be done in a subjective way (willing it into existence) but happens in connection with objective events (“hasten and await” as the Maoists say)… as sections of the people are drawn into political life and radical opposition by the workings and outrages of a worldwide system.
We need to sketch out a plan and road. We need to put flesh and depth and substance to a common political vision. But I believe it has to emerge in opposition to plans that would (deliberately or unconsciously) tie revolutionaries (and the discontented) more and more deeply to the Democrats (and to the current administration in power). We need to do something together that is both very real and very radical. And should be super-leery of strategies that abandon the radical in the name of the real.
Bhaskar said
1) Your right– revolutionaries can not manage the bourgeois state. It must be a movement of opposition that attempts to garner majority support over the long-term for socialism.
2) Pushing the Democratic Party to the left is a fantasy, but given the restrictive ballot access laws and the fact that progressive forces are forced into the Democrat camp, so is 3rd party building.
The movement of opposition similar to one that Kautsky (and by extension Lenin) mapped out in “The Road to Power” is still a model. Obviously the tactics need to drastically change to reflect our age and circumstances, but the general principles of an independent movement of the working class hasn’t changed.
I would personally not be opposed to an independent, united left movement of opposition (seeking to overcome, not ameliorate capitalism) using the Democratic Party primaries, not to push the party left or as an entryist scheme, but rather running as open, democratic Marxists. There are no dues, very little central structure and open primaries.
I’m a bit loaded up on BBQ, but I had a discussion on Louis Proyect’s Marxism list to this effect tonight.
Recommended for interested comrades: http://radicalebooks.blogspot.com/2009/07/revolutionary-strategy-by-mike-mcnair.html
The point is to avoid both Trotskyist efforts to build front groups, micro-sect building (ala PSL), anarchist let’s be revolutionaries one weekend a year and talk about it for the rest of the year and popular front fantasies with Obama (coalitions with capitalist forces).
Basically we need to get to the point where the left can be united under the broad idea of what kind of organization we need and what we need to do. In other words the left needs to start asking the right questions. Finding the right answers— the tactics— to accomplish the task of creating an independent mass movement is the hard part, but we haven’t even done the easy part.
Andrei Mazenov said
This is a subject that I have always thought about when I was a kid just getting into revolutionary politics. I learned of the Bolsheviks’ participation in the Duma and the large successes of communist parties in places like Italy and Germany before the war while studying history by myself, but was taught by older comrades that such things were a “mistake” and that Lenin had “got it wrong” when he spoke of running for elections in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. But I always wondered: is that ALWAYS going to be true? Yes, the electoral work of the SWP, WWP, PSL, and SP-USA always seem to go nowhere, and the CP-USA’s work in supporting the Democrats… well, we all know where THAT’S taken them… but what if during a revolutionary crisis we need something that can cause cracks in the system as well as gauge our mass support? Could elections in which a major revolutionary communist mass movement participates end up helping to polarize things in a way that could lead to revolution?
I’m glad to see that there are others out there that, while opposing both the CP-USA’s alliances with the Democrats and the SWP’s/PSL’s/WWP’s election campaigns, still understands that what is correct to do right now may not always be so…
Stanley W. Rogouski said
If the electoral system is rigged to encourage as low a voter turnout as possible, then it seems that entrism, the threat of a third party, and the threat of withdrawal altogether are all equally ineffective.
1.) Entrism: The left is concentrated mostly in the large urban states and the system is rigged in a way that not only favors the smaller, more conservative states, but assumes that the Democrats will win certain states, and the Republicans certain other states. So who cares if the Democrats get a few more leftists voting for them in California. They’d just as soon win with 55% as with 60%.
2.) Third Partyism: It’s not only the hurdles to getting on the ballot, it’s the gerrymandering. Take my own state, New Jersey. NJ-9 has been gerrymandered as a largely black district with a few Jews thrown in for color. It’s always going to have a congressman on the left of the Democratic Party, but local poltics are always going to be dominated by a entrenched, and fairly corrupt African American elite. They system’s given them that little fishbowl to be the big fish in and don’t think they’re going to let Greens or independents get any influence. NJ-7 on the other hand, is a largely white, largely affluent district that will always go Republican, or, at best Blue Dog.
3.) Withdrawal Altogetherism: Works for both major parties. The Democrats don’t have pesky leftists complaining about the war or about health care reform. The Republicans get a slightly more conservative electorate. They can take the left or leave it. They can take the right or leave it. As long as the money keeps flowing from their corporate donors.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
But I guess a question to ask is this?
Was Van Jones a genuine threat? Did Fox and Glenn Beck target him merely out of paranoia or to humiliate Obama? Or is somehow sliping in and building up a little fiefdom within the bureaucracy a way to get at least some influence?
Bhaskar said
Stanley to answer your 2nd question… no. Even if Obama was himself a radical Marxist there isn’t much he can do to buck the logic of class society, while managing the bourgeois state.
Your first point is well taken. I would recommend the pamplet I linked to in my first post. For a more condensed version of the argument I would recommend this short article: http://theactivist.org/blog/the-current-relevance-of-an-old-debate
I plan to write more on the topic of organization as it seems like much of the American far left is coming to similar conclusions of the need for a new alternative and some sort of left re-foundation.
Bryan the Trot said
This is an interesting discussion.
I think that entering into the Democrats (how would you do that?) is out of the question for Marxists. Even voting Democrat is crossing a class line.
I also agree with the points that the sectarian micro-campaigns of PSL/SWP/WWP etc don’t accomplish much to increase the confidence or participation of radicalizing workers and youth in struggle.
It is obviously ABCs that Marxists can’t manage a bourgeois state. We will have to smash it and create a workers’ state by forcibly transferring power to mass organizations of struggle. But that affirmation of Bolshevism 101 doesn’t really “engage” with the current circumstances.
Workers, the oppressed and youth often put their hopes in elections while a the same time people feel powerless in much of the political process; seems contradictory, but true. Putting forward a socialist or broadly anti-corporate platform in elections can become a pole of attraction, help to publicize struggles to a broader layer, and build people’s participation in movements.
So, we need to build useful alliances that fall somewhere between the “liquidate into Democrats” and “build the sect” mantras. Coalitions independent of big business on the local level linking up anti-war groups, union activists, left Greens, socialists, etc. could be useful. “Quit funding anti-worker Democrats!” can be a starting point in the labor movement nationally. We need to think creatively about electoral campaigns coming out of struggles and vice versa, all independent of the two parties of war, racism and corporate greed. A mass workers or left party that people could actually make decisions on the program, candidates, platform, campaigning priorities would be a tremendous weapon in the hands of people moving into conflict with aspects of the capitalist offensive.
I would also like to bring comrades’ attention to the city-wide City Council campaign in Boston for Matt Geary in 2009. Despite being a Socialist Alternative candidate, he was endorsed by a broad coalition including the local SPUSA group, numerous trade unionists, even a prominent anti-war clergy member (don’t tell Avakian!) http://boston.socialistalternative.org/organizer.php?issue=9 The campaign scored over three-thousand votes. By even the accounts of the bourgeois media, Matt’s presence shook up the whole race.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
BTW, pushing for instant runoff ballots would be a way to get the Democrats to show their real colors.
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
This way I’d get to put Nader as my first candidate, Cynthia McKinney as my second, and Hillary or Obama as my third. It would give the marginal candidates and parties a chance to build their organizations. And it would guarantee my vote would go for the centrist corporate whore and not the theocratic fascist.
Of course there isn’t a chance in hell the Democrats would let it happen. But it’s probably worth making them debate it if you can.
Bhaskar said
Well building a principled movement of opposition means socialists uniting under a broad, but openly Marxist platform and building a mass organization where ever we can. Campuses, work places, cities, everywhere. A united, openly democratic Marxist party of opposition that builds all the organs of a mass party / worker’s movement (community orgs, workers’ medias, some cooperatives, unions).
Your question is an excellent one Bryan– how do we deal with the fact that marginalized groups put stock in achieving whatever marginal change they can through the electoral process and are in the Democratic Party tent (who can blame them?). I think that the movement of opposition can take advantage of Democratic Party primaries in urban areas for example where socialists can articulate an openly Marxist platform. We are taking advantage here of open primaries and the fact that there are no dues in American parties. How’s to say that we even have a party system in the United States. The advantages of this approach over the 3rd party approach is that we would reach a broader audience than we could through 3rd parties. We would not be attempting to enter the Democratic Party to push it to the left, but rather just take advantage of the open primaries to conduct an educational electoral campaign to promote the mass organization that a refounded left would be building.
We are leaps and leaps away from these steps and tactically it’ll be difficult, but we certainty have the organizational experience among the cadre on the revolutionary left rotting away in micro-sects or supporting Obama.
That’s enough from me for now, but I do recommend the links I posted previously. I’m not advocating anything revolutionary here nor are my ideas original. Form the crux of Marx’s, Kautsky’s and Lenin’s idea on the organizing of a party of the working class.
Getting a sectarian left behind such a commonsense program might prove impossible— look at how Solidarity’s attempt at a left regroupment has gone. We would need groups to agree to a common platform and liquidate themselves in much the same way the LCR did into the NPA. Which is quite fantastical.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
Campuses, work places, cities, everywhere. A united, openly democratic Marxist party of opposition that builds all the organs of a mass party / worker’s movement (community orgs, workers’ medias, some cooperatives, unions).
My only question would be about what motivation the Democrats or the Republicans would have to pay attention to this kind of organization.
Once again, they don’t care if we don’t vote. They care about coporate money. They’d rather have us not vote, in fact.
But if we must vote, they make sure our choices are limited to:
1.) The corporate whore party
2.) The theocratic whackjob party
BTW: Speaking of third party candidates. I was walking around lower Manhattan today and there were posters everywhere for some kind of 9/11 Truth Conference next week. It’s mostly Alex Jones wingut types but Cynthia McKinney is on the speakers list, sadly, it must be noted, right about an endorsement from The John Birch Society.
I’m not sure what to make of this. I don’t really have a problem with an occasional alliance with right wingers over single issues. But where do you draw the line?
n3wday said
I’m glad Bryan brought up the story about the person running locally in Boston. It seems that there is a huge distinction to be made between local and national campaigns, which obviously inform the derived analysis. It seems that Mikes piece is mostly geared towards national work which I think leaves out a big part of the picture.
I’d be interested in hearing other folks input about local electoral struggles. Ideas or experience, etc.
Bryan the Trot said
While working within broader formations, a Marxist tendency should not liquidate. Stale, institutionalized sectarianism should also be avoided. This can be a difficult tightrope to walk, but political clarity and experience in struggle can make the rope seem more sturdy.
The LCR liquidating into NPA left the organization with no momentum or direction. They got wiped out in the European elections, and despite an early splash, their profile in struggle has died down. Compare this to Joe Higgins in Ireland and the Socialist Party (socialistparty.net) who maintained a Marxist organization while still reaching electoral pacts with other left forces and building broad-based power from below in immigrant rights campaigns, strikes, etc.
In Die Linke, NPA, PSoL (Brazil) and USP in Venezuela (a more difficult question), any Marxists involved should seek to build struggle within the party and broader society while maintaining their political and organizational identity as Marxists. In most countries for Marxists, the task is not “how do we intervene in a broad party of struggle?” The questions for us here and most places are “how do we get an inclusive party of class struggle?” “how can we help to initiate that fight?” “how do we break people who want to fight from the bourgeois parties?”
To be honest, I expected this discussion to be simply “If elections changed anything, the bourgeois would make it illegal.” I am impressed by the thoughtfulness on this issue even if I’ve been harshly sharp with regard to other questions on this site.
Bryan the Trot said
In comment 6, I meant 2007 in reference to the Boston campaign.
movementofthought said
I have keen interest in political and ideological developments of world revolution. This blog is providing up to date information, which is really very helpful for those who wants to keep in touch with Nepali’s revolution in particular and world revolution in general.
Many Thanks and congratulations for your great efforts..
Mubarak Lal
http://movementofthought.wordpress.com
Bhaskar said
Bryan- I would recommend you read that piece in “The Activist” I liked to and other articles in the CPGB-PCC’s “Weekly Worker”.
As a Trotskyist you’ll be challenged on the question of tactics. That’s really where I differ from the Trotskyists– my opposition to the way they have historically operated, the transitional program, etc. I completely embrace the legacy of Leon Trotsky and the anti-Stalinist opposition.
Personally I’ve heard somethings about the NPA that may suggest that you’re right, but I haven’t been paying too close attention to it. Any good articles on their efforts?
nando said
Quite a few of our readers do not know much about the transformation of the French LCR (the long standing trotskyist group equivalent to the old SWP in the U.S.) into the NPA (new antipcapitalist party) — an electoral “left” party. Or the history of Lutte Ouvriere (workers struggle) — a different trotskyist group of a very workerist bend, which had comparatively significant “success” in french elections as a “left” alternative to the Socialist Party (the main left party in France), and to the old-line Communists (who have been collapsing since the 1960s).
In ways that are perhaps not obvious, various “European Experiences” (in France, England, Germany, Norway) with the transformation of radical socialist groups into more electoral formations (and fronts) have been influencing (encouraging, prodding) those left forces in the U.S. who are inclined in those directions. (ISO and Solidarity have been similarly interested in electoral third party attempts, like the Greens and Nadar. And Freedom Road Socialist Organization is considering its own strategic approaches to electoral efforts (more generally focused on the reworking of a Jesse-Jackson-Style “rainbow coalition” in relation to the new Democratic administration.)
Perhaps someone with knowledge of these European electoral experiences could comment here — one what the programs were, what the experiences have been — or provide us with links to documents that sum it up (in a framework accessible to activists in the U.S.).
* * * * * * *
A brief note of my own:
There is another history worth remembering, and that is the very sad record of the democratic socialists (of the Michael Harrington variety) in the 1960s. These forces (grouped around the author of “The Other America” an exposure of poverty in the U.S.) were greatly encouraged by the rise of Lyndon Johnson to the U.S. presidency — especually his attempt to formulate a “Great Society” of new social programs (wedded to the voting rights act), as a response to the highly restless struggle among African American people.
This excitement over the liberal ‘domestic agenda” made the democratic socialists very very wary of the new antiwar movement — emerging as a response to LBJ’s escalation of Kennedy’s intervention in Vietnam. They used the excuse of “communists” in the antiwar movement to take their distance — i.e. they were wedded to an old, and very reactionary, 1950s policy of refusing to work in any coalition that included “the Stalinist totalitarians” — since (they argued) such a movement would be instantly lacking in credibility in the U.S. (and more importantly, in ruling class circles where the democratic socialists were seeking sympathy and possible allies).
Michael Harrington’s intuitive sympathy for Lyndon Johnson meant that the democratic socialists were “missing in action” in the creation of the greatest antiwar movement in U.S. history (and it meant that, as a trend, they were not able to build themselves much of a new political current out of the sixties radicals — even though the ground was as fertile for their trend as it was for others.)
I raise this because it is a cautionary tale for radicals today: Analogies are difficult, and Barack Obama (for many reasons) will never simply be “today’s Lyndon Johnson” — even if he now starts to escalate George Bush’s Afghan war. But the history underscores the importance of opposing the U.S. government (whoever sits in those seats), and developing a movement with real independence, initiative and a public radical critique of the capitalist system itself. And too much fascination with the “domestic agenda” of the liberals-in-power, and an ambivalent-or-paralyzed stand toward their imperialist moves will prove unforgivable… especially if the dream deferred and the crisis of new crimes give rise to real resistance.
There will be those who repeat the counsel and errors of a Michael Harrington (tied to similar soft spots for liberals-in-power, and tied to similar reformist inclinations)… I’m just sayin.
Bhaskar said
Harrington’s waffling on Vietnam was something he attempted to atone for later, but it had more to do with his former fellowship with Max Shachtman than affinities with LBJ. If you want a more through view of Harrington I would recommend you read “The Other American” by Isserman.
Now the Afghanistan – Vietnam analogy is completely, completely off the mark. I’m actually writing something on the topic now.
Much of the worldwide radicalization of anti-war youth during the 1960s and 70s didn’t take the form of pacifism, but rather zealous anti-imperialism. While young American youth chanted on campuses and in the streets, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Cong is Going to Win,” a massive GI resistance movement within the American army played an unheralded role in the reunification of Vietnam. Thousands of soldiers in the U.S. armed forces mutinied, sabotaged, fragged and propagandized to aid the efforts of the peasant-army they were trained to slaughter. By 1972 roughly 300 anti-war and anti-military newspapers with names like All Hands Bandon Ship urged troops to adhere to a revolutionary defeatist tactic. In 1970 alone the Pentagon disclosed that 209 officers were fragged by enlisted men. By 1972 the desertion rate had reached 52.3 per thousand and military equipment was frequently sabotaged and destroyed.
But just like in Vietnam, imperialist forces are waging war.
Radicals were quick to proclaim that the wars in the Middle-East were “this generation’s Vietnam”, an event that would politicize millions in the same way that the conflict in Indochina did. They are confused about why this hasn’t happened. They are angry. They blame White privilege, imperialist superprofits, daytime TV or the corporate media. I’m not a huge fan of any of those things, but I do know that recent ventures by US forces and, conversely, the resistance to the war in Afghanistan is nothing like the war in Vietnam.
1) Imperialism is now targeting an ultra-reactionary Right
2) Resistance movements are isolated without the support of any major power and without much international support, thus the United States was not militarily defeatable in Iraq or Afghanistan.
3) How would a blow to US imperialism in Afghanistan benefit progressive forces in the United States?
4) There is no defeatist movement in the US Army.
5) The anti-war movement is a pacifist movement, as it should be, because no principled left-forces would lend solidarity to reactionary forces that maim our cothinkers in their own countries. This is in contrast to the movement in the 60s and 70s, which was a militant anti-imperialist movement and not a pacifist movement.
land said
To Movementofthought:
Glad you are paying attention to the SE Asia website.
It is very important.
Censored said
Bhaskar,
Each of your 5 numbered points is both obvious and unrefutable and your preceding description of what a real anti-imperialist movement in the sixties actually looked like is accurate and its contrast with what pretends to be a movement today is stark.
Unfortunately the mental block runs very very deep.
Certain logical conclusions follow directly from your 5 points that are extremely difficult for people who expected that opposing a war against the ultra-reactionary right would develop a mass movement like Vietnam and who convinced themselves that daytime TV etc rather than an absurdly wrong line was the cause of their failure.
Be careful about actually drawing those logical conclusions as they literally cannot handle it and resort to shutting down.
Ben said
The PSL’s Frances Villar campaign is a legit campaign. It has got some real traction in the Spanish-language press and in some NYC communities there is a significant buzz around it. Check it out here:
http://www.votepsl.org
The PSL’s LA mayoral campaign in the spring registered a little over 1.0%. Not much on its face, but it’s actually the highest percentage total that a socialist candidate has received in that race since 1957.
Electoral campaigns give socialist organizations — and the overall message of socialism and struggle — a wider audience. Elections provide the bourgeoisie the opportunity to mask their dictatorship as a class; it is an entirely valid tactic for revolutionaries to crash the party and denounce it from within.
The assertion that the PSL’s electoral campaigns are “universally ineffective” (to quote Mike) lacks a definition of “effectiveness.” The vote tally is not, at this stage, the decisive variable, although it does provide some measure of the level of consciousness and organization of our class (just as the sizes of street demonstrations do).
Bryan’s assertion that these campaigns do not “increase the confidence or participation of radicalizing workers and youth in struggle” is mostly an empirical question. From our direct experience, we feel (and yes, I’m clearly a PSL member) that our campaigns have done precisely that — or else, well, why would we do them?
Bhaskar said
“The vote tally is not, at this stage, the decisive variable, although it does provide some measure of the level of consciousness and organization of our class (just as the sizes of street demonstrations do).”
But when popular forces mobilize in the streets of Tehran it only serves to demonstrate the consciousness and organization of global imperialism?
Bhaskar said
Also— I’m not sure how much of an effect the campaign will have on the race, but I met Frances Villar and she’ll have my support despite my qualms about the arcane neo-Stalinist stances the PSL has taken up and its vulgar anti-imperialist analysis. From my experience working with the PSL and ANSWER I can say that pound per pound you guys do a very good job organizing in spite of your organization’s size.
Mike E said
Ben:
I greatly appreciate your discussion of the PSL campaigns. And would like to drill down some more.
Most readers of this site (me included) have never been part of a serious discussion of this kind of an electoral campaign: Generally, electoral participation has been engaged in the form of support for left-liberal Democrats (on a “lesser evil” basis, or on the basis that we will connect with those who believe in “lesser evil” and win them left.)
The approach you advocate is (if I understand it) an approach of pretty purely “run for office in order to reach new audiences broadly with our ideas.” I don’t think it is wrong in principle, but it is my impression that it has not been a particularly good technique for reaching new audiences — in part because the U.S. is not a parliamentary system, and so “third parties” (especially the smaller ones) get a blanket of silence (with few exceptions).
As a teenager, i was in france in 1968, and my first connection with the more radical French forces was a TV appearance by the head of the JCR (Alan Krivine), who was alotted major air time (in prime time) along with “all the other candidates” — and spent most of it talking (in quite radical terms) of barricades and the need to rupture with the Fifth Republic (i.e. the current constitutional order). It is hard to argue against the value of THAT kind of exposure and airtime. And even the most radical forces in Europe assume there is benefit (on sum level) in running for office (under their own banners) — and there is often funding too.
But it is also clear that minor parties in the U.S. DON’T get anything like that kind of access by running. In fact, in my (admittedly limited) experience, small openings in the media are not particularly linked or increased by the “legitimacy” achieved by running — i.e. BA on the Tom Snyder Show, or Sunsara’s repeated experience on Fox did not require an electoral campaign for a mini-opening in the mainstream media.
So I would be interested in discussing definition of “effectiveness” that argue for such mini-campaigns of agitation.
Here are some questions i have for people who engage in (or advocate) these kinds of socialist party electoral campaigns:
1) How do we get a sense of the kind of outreach such a campaign afforded?
2) How much do these campaigns actually promote radical ideas?
My impression reading some literature of such campaigns over the years is that they actually don’t much talk about the problems of this political system, the need for rev and so on — but focus on support for more immediate social movement protest, and the more immediate demands like “books not war” or whatever…perhaps with a brief passing reference to “socialism” (which, as we know, means different things outside left subcultures). (The CP used to run the crudest campaigns — focused almost exclusively on worker identity politics with slogans like “put a worker in the white house,” almost without other content other than anti-Republican main-blow politics.)
In other words, I have not generally seen them actually focus on raising ideas that break OUT of the system and its illusions. So could you describe how you see raising larger ideas in the electoral context, and which larger ideas you think are (or should be) raised.
3) How should we sum up the minuscule vote? I assume you think we should not use that as a measure that the campaigns failed… but what does it reflect about popular consciousness, the quality of the political outreach, and the strength of Democratic Party hegemony when such things don’t resonate and pull even a protest vote?
Bryan the Trot said
Fair enough Ben. I think that the left should reach out broader and think bigger in campaigns through alliances outside the two parties of big business and war. Good luck in NYC!
heiss93 said
Under the system of open primaries why couldn’t we organize a section of the Democratic Party like the Progressives for Obama, while openly proclaiming our politics and not compromising at all? Gloria LaRiva could have advocated her exact same platform running in the Democratic primaries and gotten far more media attention. With the US 2-party system participating in US primaries is not so different than the KPD in the Reichstag or Lenin in the Duma.
Although I think Mike E. made a good point that the KPD was already a successful revolutionary organization that used electoral strategy as a tactic. We shouldn’t abandon this tactic. But on the other hand it would be putting the car before the horse, to suggest a change in electoral strategy would change the fortunes of the left.
Bhaskar said
heiss93 I made exactly the same argument earlier in the thread, but this effort would only be worth while if we were promoting a mass organization/party of the working class.
We are far away from that at the moment.
Eli Boulton said
Heiss93: I don’t think the media would have allowed for Gloria LaRiva of all people to run in the Democratic primaries, just look how they treated left-liberals like Kucinich and Gravel, how would they treat a communist?
Carl Davidson said
Rather than argue the theory here for the umpteenth time as to why we stay out of the electoral arena in nonrevolutionary conditions at our own peril and foolishness, I’ll simply reassert that our work with a variant on the ‘inside/outside’ tactic or ‘entryism’ or whatever you want to call it, is serving us well in our local area. We do it by building our version of Progressive Democrats of America, PDA, which nationally has something over 120,000 members. The record of our practice, and some position papers, are at http://beavercountyblue.org I’ll be glad to answer any questions, as best as I can, anyone has after looking this over.
heiss93 said
Eli, how would the media stop a candidate from running in the Democratic primaries?
Red Side said
From my own experience, I agree with Ben that electoral campaigns “give socialist organizations — and the overall message of socialism and struggle — a wider audience.”
I read an article the other day about Frances Villar calling to “shut down Rikers Island[!!],” among other things. This was posted in the N.Y. Metro w/ a news feed of over a million. The article contrasted Villar’s militant socialism w/ Obama’s branding as a socialist w/ the telling title (referring to Villar) “the real face of socialism.” http://www.ny.metro.us/us/article/2009/09/10/06/4632-82/index.xml
Here in Los Angeles, as Ben mentioned, we ran a PSL mayoral candidate last spring that received a little over 1% of the vote. It’s important to note that the label miniscule is itself is a relative term. Yes, 1% is miniscule relative to the overall vote count. But L.A. is the second largest city in the nation. So 1% in absolute numbers is a rather large figure. There is also a correlation b/w the use of such elections and the “mainstream” media coverage we socialists receive. One metric for “effectiveness,” I’d argue, is the amount of coverage such campaigns receive. This can be empirically documented.
The L.A. mayoral campaign was also a great learning experience. It not only let us bring socialist ideas to people who otherwise would not have access to those ideas but it also allows us to interact w/ them by engaging in dialogues w/ them. It should also be noted that this was our first time running a candidate in L.A. In a few years, if we correct our mistakes and amplify the things we did correctly, we might get 5% of the vote. It’s a learning process. Another empirical measurement of the success of that process, I’d argue, is the correlation in party building. If the campaigns are conducted as real socialist campaigns, then we should be able to use party membership figures as another measurement of success. That can also be empirically documented.
jp said
I have to stop and salute C. Davidson’s indefatigability in promoting what he considers to be lesser-evilism. See the running body count on this page for just one example of what you get with that: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq.
Anyone have good links for body counts in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Maybe that Beaver County site?