don't mourn, organize!

This is just some initial thinking, I need to do more study of how the political framework is changed.

I think this shows important shifts both among the ruling class and among the "base" of the two parties; both Democrat and Republican. There is a great deal of disenfranchisement on the part of the Democratic base where it is difficult for them to mobilize around anything besides "not the Republicans". The promises and dreams of the masses of people who poured into the streets two years ago go unrealized. They face either total disenfranchisement or supporting the democrats on the basis of "better than bush" (which isn't actually the case). They face the reality of attacks on immigrants, wars for empire, continued use of torture and secret rendition, don't ask don't tell, fbi raids on non-violent activists, etc.

Meanwhile the right wing and the more radicalized sections of the right wing around the tea-party have a tremendous vigor, enthusiasm and anger at Obama, what he represents (or to them seems to represent) as a part of an infringement upon "white entitlement" and "traditional values." They are calling for more open and brutal dictatorship against all of those sections of people that I mentioned earlier as well as aspects of theocratic rule and they have a great deal of backing from certain sections of the ruling class. (Now its important to not view them as a uniform "they" but with contradiction among them with different brands and stripes but these are the contours of the most radical and vicious sections of them).

So the democrats are facing increasing necessity to continue to represent the interests of empire, meanwhile its base is increasingly disenfranchised because of this. Then, on the other side, there is the threat of the Tea Party reactionaries who are being mobilized and lead by other sections of the ruling class to their own ends. It is a tricky situation for the ruling class and it is unclear what kind of resolution this will have.

With this growing disenfranchisement on the part of progressive people that can, (at least in the near future) only continue to grow, it is important, as Red Flags said, to build "not abstract support but actual organization." But I think that it is important not to approach this in a head down or stereotypical way. We <i>do</i> need to analyze the contours of this developing antagonism among the ruling class and the way people will be forced to run into the real-world limitations of democrats and look for other solutions. For instance, the millions of the recently unemployed, immigrants and the fact that the democrats are rounding up more of them than Bush ever could, Black people and racism/brutality from the police, etc. What will happen as the democrats continue the course they are on? What is the potential embodied in the contradiction of that immigrants are needed in an illegal status for the competitive functioning of the US economy at the same time as they need to increasingly crack down on these sections of people? We need to analyze all this as well as the thinking of the people in order to organize anything besides struggling for reforms. We need to find the ways to organize masses of people to come up against the system itself and bring them the truth about how we can do away with all this shit as we do it.

This situation has taken a relative leap with the Republicans successfully taking the house, it will embolden Tea Partiers while you can already see some of the feeling of hopelessness on the part of some of those that have been supporters of the democrats. We need to be emboldened too, but with a critical eye for how we can build a serious movement for revolution and expose these ruling class representatives (and their programs) for what they are.

If there's anything notable about the likely impact of this election it should be to force a "put up or shut up" effect on Rand Paul. Although some Leftist websites downplay this fact when speaking of Rand Paul, it has to be noted that an important source of background prestige for Rand Paul was the antiwar stance taken by his father Ron Paul. It often seems that Leftist websites which take note of this fact can easily go off into cheering for Libertarianism the way Alexander Cockburn &amp; CounterPunch do. Those Leftie websites which don't fall into this trap seem to simply downplay the importance of the antiwar statements made by Ron Paul and the resulting association of this with Rand Paul. Instead they usually prefer to highlight statements with a possible racist tone from either of the Pauls as a way of separating them off. That doesn't lead to a very clear comprehension of the Paulista phenomenon.

Rand Paul in the last few months has done some incredible skating between the statements made by his father criticizing the war in Iraq and the barrels of Koch/Murdoch funds being poured into the Teabags. But now that the election is done this is where the rubber hits the road. Either Rand Paul starts coming out overtly with some brand of Libertarian antiwar politics, or else he is exposed as a fraud in the same way that Barack Obama was. It's nothing more complicated than that.

If Rand Paul turns along the road of being a visible war-supporter then this will expose the fakery of every claim made thus far about a Teabagger revolution. If he now takes up a strident stand against foreign military interventionism then that will be something which will warrant a separate analysis. My guess is that he'll go the first way, but I've been wrong before. In any event, the Left should avoid dismissing these conflicts within the Paulista phenomenon out of mere antagonism towards Libertarianism. These actually are real conflicts which exist within the bowels of the Teabaggers and a political analysis should take that into account.

I don't know that I'd actually agree with the characterization that "victorious Democrats...promise 'war on the unions.' Obama no longer promises anything." What's the basis of such a suggestion? Certainly Andrew Cuomo is <i>a Democrat</i> that promises that, but do the rest? Isn't it the case that actually it was by-and-large the <i>conservative</i> Democrats that lost, not the "progressives" and liberals? And isn't that important to our understanding of the transformation in the electorate?

What opportunities does a less conservative Democratic caucus represent, especially keeping in mind the line around electoral politics and the need for fractures in the DNC that TellNoLies has compellingly spelled out for us?

By no means am I meaning to suggest that we should have some kind of hope or faith in the Democratic Party, and agree generally that they are ineffective at moving <i>any</i> progressive reform, and our efforts are best spent elsewhere. But I do mean to suggest that this kind of slogan doesn't actually grapple with the materiality of the elections' outcomes and complexities; instead, it is a simpleton reduction--which is somewhat what I have come to expect here in the analysis of the Democratic party, even if not electoral work in the abstract.

All our candidates in Western PA lost to the Tea Party/GOP by substantial margins, roughly 60-40. Our Blue Dog congressman won, but we didn't support him. He had an undercount of about 1000 voters, meaning people who left his line blank. That reflected some of our work.

From my experience knocking on union household doors as part of an AFL-CIO team, many people erroneously believe that the only way they will get economic relief is by cutting taxes. They also erroneously think cutting taxes for the rich will create jobs. Some also erroneously think it's OK to cut certain social services because these only benefit Blacks, and if they have if tougher, too bad. So the results stem from this thinking leading to changes from Dem to GOP. Add to that the fact that large numbers of youth stayed home, and you have a victory for the right.

The Dems that lost most, though, were the Blue Dogs. About half of them bit the dust. So the remaining Dems will be smaller, but more liberal.

The GOP majority in the House will bring some shifts. But remember, for the past two years the GOP plus the Blue Dogs were pretty much in control anyway, and blocked or diminished many measure that might have been helpful to workers.

I agree with Red Flags. Every socialist needs to join a socialist or communist group. But as is known here, I think we need two forms of organization: socialist ones to unite the militant minority, and mass democratic ones to unite the emerging progressive majority. That why in addition to CCDS, I urge people to build groups like PDA or the Greens, in part to wage struggle in the electoral arena. If you don't like these, organize something else, but get organized and prepare for struggle.

I agree with Carl Davidson on a dual track strategy (cadre and electoral).

I sit in California, which actually turned somewhat "left" this election, so I may not be the best analyst, but I see this election less about ideological realignment than an expression of frustration at the perception of poor economic conditions, i.e., more akin to Democratic gains in 1982 at Reagan's first mid-term.

Millions did not vote who "would have" in 2006 or 2008. The partisan advantages of specific subgroups didn't change much, but the turnout of the respective groups certainly did - enough to defeat many incumbents who were narrowly elected in the past two elections.

The Democrats I critically support are those like Raul Grijalva, former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, etc. They are not in control of the Democratic Party, and represent a progressive fraction. To deny that they can act as a sort of tribune having a positive impact is incorrect.

I do not see a contradiction between being a communist, recognizing that the US in an imperialist country regardless of which party is in control, and also engaging in the electoral process, including by supporting pro-capitalist candidates. As a matter of fact, I consider that the Democratic Party is highly susceptible to being "taken over" by relatively small groups of disciplined cadre due to its opportunism, eclectic, and "post-ideological" nature.

While the Democratic Party congressional caucus may be more liberal in compositionas a result of this election, this is largely a function of its reduced size. I don't think we should expect it to be any more progressive than say the Democratic caucus was in 2000, which is to say not very. And some Dems will undoubtedly still position themselves as good centrists, so I don't think we should be pinning any hopes at all on this development.

I'd like to agree and disagree with comments by Redflags. I agree that it is urgent that we build socialist/communist organizations -- joining existing ones, starting new ones, whatever makes sense given our social and geographical location and available energies. But I strongly disagree with the claim that "voting is not politics." It may be a stunted sort of politics, but it is in fact the most political most people in this society get. More importantly, the electoral process imposes itself on all us whether we like it or not, channelling energies away from extra-electoral struggles in clocklike fashion every two years, with an extended almost year-long stretch every four years.

We can rail against this fact, retreat from it into our respective silos, or capitulate to it and dutifully carry water for this or that "progressive Dem." Or we can try to intervene in a conscious and creative manner that deliberately disrupts politics as usual.

I think that if we don't figure out, through discussion but also experimentation, how to deal with this problem, all the earnest calls to "build socialist organizations" are not going to go very far. Elections are the main arena in which political life occurs in the U.S. and so long as we operate outside them we announce in advance our marginalization. This is not to say that extra-electoral mass revolutionary work hasn't and won't happen again, but that our failure to really develop a strategic approach to the question is deeply self-limiting.

Mike has argued previously that while he doesn't view abstention from the electoral arena as a matter of principle, the circumstances under which revs should directly participate in it are rare. While I think it is important to clarify that it is not a question of principle, since so many folks here seem to think it is, I think the view that electoral work should only be done under extraordinary circumstances is wrong.

While I am receptive to the argument that a small and organizationally fragile socialist movement might want to gather some forces, achieve some political clarity and build up some capacity in extra-electoral arenas of struggle before jumping into electoral campaigns, it is another thing altogether I think to imagine that we can avoid developing a consistent practice of participation in elections and ever get to the point of actually contesting for state power. (Which, as I have argued elsewhere, is <b>not</b> something I see taking place primarily through the electoral process.)

I have argued here previously for an electoral strategy focused on running explicit socialists in Democratic Party primaries to build up a consciously socialist electorate and to build a "party within a party" in preparation for, and to accelerate, a rupture within the Democratic Party and a repolarization of electoral politics (which might well provoke a response by the powers that be such that further participation in the electoral arena becomes impossible). While I am open to other suggestions I think such an approach corresponds best to the distinct terrain of the U.S. two-party system and the first-past-the-post system that gives rise to it.

The question remains of course, what sort of timeline is appropriate for initiating such an approach. And this brings us to the lessons to be drawn from the recent mid-term elections.

I think the rise of the Tea Party suggests a real failure of the center to hold, that it is a sign of a serious crisis for the ruling class. While many newly elected Tea Party candidates will promptly make their peace with the Republican establishment (and some were really never genuine insurgents to begin with) this is not just politics as usual. While many Dem elected officials and prospective candidate will respond to these results by running to the right, I think that the situation creates a real opening for explicitly socialist candidates, if not to actually win primaries, to make respectable showings and begin the work of building a socialist electorate and a "party within a party."

If we might indulge a hypothetical, an openly socialist (and not social democratic) primary challenger to Barack Obama in 2012 would, I believe, represent a unique opportunity to initiate such a strategy. Given the historic symbolism surrounding his election it seems highly unlikely that Obama will be the object of an actually viable primary challenge. At the same time there are enormous feelings of the betrayal of progressive promises on Obama's part that a socialist candidate could speak to and in the process "reshuffle" some of the forces of the existing left, and build a new socialist organization.

It probably won't happen and if it did the forces able to initiate it would undoubtedly bring all sorts of contradictions with them, but I think revolutionary communists would be fools to sit out such a process and criticize it from the sidelines. And in a similar vein I think we would be missing an opportunity if we didn't ourselves initiate something similar on a smaller scale, running a candidate or three in carefully chosen congressional primaries.

I think the idea of a socialist challenger to Obama in the primaries is perhaps premature. I do, however, think that there are opportunities for congress. The Democratic Party didn't even run a candidate for US senate in South Dakota, for instance. There are opportunities in state legislative and congressional primaries. I've considered it myself even. I can point to some examples (not of the best politics, however) of certain groups "infiltrating" the Democratic Party in this manner and having great success in reaching new constituencies and creating political opinion. As for as platforms, some things to me would seem clear: Medicare for all; bankruptcy for insolvent financial institutions, withdrawal of troops from abroad, a new WPA to create employment and infrastructure.

I do not believe that Obama will have a significant primary challenge for the coming election. Obama is an opportunist, as was FDR. FDR has the CPUSA and SP on his left, demanding the New Deal in the streets. Obama has bankers lavishing him with campaign contributions. I believe this relationship of forces must change. A left must emerge that is engaged electorally, but only as a subsumed aspect of broader based work. And in no instance should the cadre organizational form be dispensed with.

David D,

I think you are wrong if you really think the Democratic Party can be taken over. Carl has correectly noted that, given its essentially coalitional character, most of the life of the party takes place outside its official structures, but those official structures represent critical chokepoints. This is most apparent in the phenomena of so-called "superdelegates" in the presidential candidate selection process. Superdelegates are basically party officials who serve as delegates irresepective of how the rank and file votes in the primaries. I believe they were introduced in the wake of the McGovern campaign and strengthened after Jackson's first run. That is to say they are a deliberately established structural obstacle to a "takeover" of the party not by socialists but rather even by the party's liberal wing. We are just as likely to "take over" Microsoft as the Democratic Party.

What I think CAN be done is for a socialist "party within a party" to be built, precipitating a showdown with the party's ruling class leadership and producing a rupture in which a new genuinely left party emerges with a mass base. Such a repolarization would of course only be possible in the context of an upsurge in extraelectoral struggles as well.

I do not think the national or state-level parties can be taken over, no. It is an eclectic mass, but as you point out, one with institutional means to assure the hegemony of certain forces. McGovern actually happened because the old rules were loosened, otherwise he wouldn't have been nominated. They tightened the rules in response to his nomination, not that it matters much.

"Party in a party" is a good concept. It could only manifest by winning primaries in certain races, and getting elected to local Democratic committees.

[Just lost a long post...Hate that!] Here's the short version:

1) Slate.com reports that only 11% of people under 30 voted. So, yeah, plenty of non-electorally trained subjects here.

2) Michael Moore foresees a potential 4-way race for president in 2012, with the Tea-Party and potentially (though Moore isn't pulling for it, just warning Barack, so that he can avoid it) a fed up Left party running too. Interesting to plug this into TNL's scenarios above.

3) I think we need to facilitate, share, and/or produce good serious critques of libertarian theory and practice. I've thought this for a while, but now with the Tea Party think it's especailly important for us to help one another sharpen our critical skills for dealing with those elements of this "wave" that are in fact open to reasoned discourse.

4) Wall Street Journal announced "Campaign Finance Reform: RIP" in a Nov. 2 editorial. Look for the real "wave" coming into washington d.c. the huge, unprecedented amounts of (undisclosed) political contributions.

5) I tend to agree with Mike in terms the primary work needing to be done outside the party structures at this point. And the pre-civil war history is very interesting here...Just above finished with John Brown, Abolitionist, by David Reynolds...May get into this more out here soon.

Here's an idea, why not except the fact that the default populist position in the US is libertarian and not socialist, might be a good time to revive the likes of prodouhn and benjamin tucker and go for a left libertarian message.

I tend to agree with Mike's post that extra-electoral work is probably the left's best focus with such small forces. I sympathize with most of TNL's arguments, I just don't think we're there, and must build up forces before we get there. I've seen in the last years the Palestine solidarity movement grow in numbers and action at an impressive rate totally outside of the electoral sphere, and likewise various movements around immigration (and of course take into account the percentage of people who actually vote, especially divided by class/race). I volunteered for years for Cynthia Mckinney's campaign (lived in her district) and after that the greens, and it can be rather draining work for a dozen revolutionaries here and there. I think we're much better off connecting to a mass of people through other issues/campaigns at the moment.

I have no problem combining both electoral politics and work in social movements. In fact, it's necessary. This month, for instance, I'm focused on the 'School of the Americas' mobilization at Fort Benning, which draws some 10,000 or more, mainly youth and radical Catholics and such, around anti-militarist and Latin America solidarity efforts, which operate largely outside the electoral arena.

In general, I also think the more revolutionary people we develop and recruit will come from a wider variety of fronts than simply from those who are among the best we find in work like PDA or the Greens--or even the trade unions, for that matter, at least under current conditions where 88 percent of the working class has no unions.

One of the key features of mass democratic work in the electoral arena, however, is precisely that it gives you a place to contend with the bourgeoisie in its own back yard, so to speak, and to regroup the workers and the oppressed into their own independent and popular front forms, ie, it gives the revolutionaries a sea for the fish to swim in and to recruit from, as well as giving the masses an organizational form for their own self-defense--not the only form, to be sure, but an important one, like the trade unions.

I also agree with the need to sharpen our swords on Ron Paul's libertarian ideas, rooted in the older Austrian school, but with one caveat: libertarianism is only a smaller aspect of the Tea Party. It's been melded with 'producerism' and 'white nationalism,' which often form more important aspects of its overall rightwing populism. Chip Berlet and Matthew Lyon's book, 'Rightwing Populism in America,' is the mother lode on the topic.

Teabaggers as such have not formed, or even attempted to form, an actual political party which could stand as a rival to the Republican Party, whether in elections or anywhere else. In this respect Ron Paul was infinitely more honest in 2007-8 when he refused to run as an independent candidate (which many of his supporters wanted him to do) but instead insisted on trying to capture the Republican nomination. The Teabagging racket which sprung up very rapidly after January 2009 was pushed the Koch brothers and some others in an effort to quickly establish a distraction away from 8 years of Bush.

But Rand Paul specifically, and maybe a few select others who could be identified with a more careful search, was someone who had a clear association with the previous Ron Paul campaign (which was not generally the case for Teabaggers as a whole, most were blatant Bush-apologists until November 2008). To that extent Rand Paul deserves to be identified separately from the generic Teabaggers. The big question hanging in the air will be to what extent does Rand Paul himself intend to make this a distinction without a difference.

I certainly haven't seen any sign that Rand Paul is planning to take up a stand against the war, but maybe I'm wrong. Yet that will be an important point to watch and determine when judging him, and it will also shed light on just how deep the fakery in Teabagging reaches.

Carl: I have no problem combining both electoral politics and work in social movements. In fact, it’s necessary.

---

But the Democratic Party leadership is hostile to the social movements. Carl, you posted on Facebook something about going to a rally against "fracking", an issue I discussed in a review of the documentary "Gasland". (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/gasland/) My home county in upstate NY is sharply divided around this issue. The latest news is that Obama decided in favor of the energy companies:

NY Times September 22, 2010
Obama Admin Rejects Timeout for Natural Gas Drilling in N.Y., Pa.
By MIKE SORAGHAN of Greenwire

The Obama administration has decided against pressing for a temporary halt to Marcellus Shale drilling in Pennsylvania and New York, a key federal official said.

Brig. Gen. Peter "Duke" DeLuca, commander of the North Atlantic Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, last week declined a request from Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) to use the federal government's vote on the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to seek a temporary ban on gas production in the Delaware watershed.

Hinchey wants drilling there to wait until the commission completes a "cumulative impact statement," but DeLuca said that could delay drilling for years.

full: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/09/22/22greenwire-obama-admin-rejects-timeout-for-natural-gas-dr-60467.htm

Speaking as someone who has been involved in social movements since 1967, I can only say that the Democratic Party has the same relationship to them as a cancer cell has to a healthy organism.

This article from Lenin's Tomb provides and informative and thoughtful, historically contextualized analysis of US voting and voter turnout for the 2010 election, in relationship to social class. It's worth reading:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/11/class-basis-of-us-elections.html

From the article:

"Thus, you have an electoral system that vastly over-represents owners, managers and professionals, and under-represents the working class by a wide margin. Incidentally, there's no sign that education has any impact on this. The increase in high school and college education among 'lower socioeconomic groups' has not led to a corresponding increase in turnout. Other research looking at non-voting corroborates this picture. Reeve Vanneman and Lynn Cannon's classic study, The American Perception of Class, looked at voting and non-voting behaviour in the US, comparing it with the UK, for the period covering the Sixties and early Seventies. They found that voters who were most inclined to self-identify as working class overwhelmingly voted for Labour in the UK, but overwhelmingly didn't vote in the US. By contrast, they found that more than two-thirds of supporters of the Democratic Party, which claims a near monopoly on all social forces left-of-centre in national elections, self-identified as middle class. Thus the perception of class, which Vanneman and Cannon show is strongly correlated to the reality of class, powerfully drives voting and non-voting behaviour."

In terms of a critique of the intellectual foundations of Libertarianism, this recent scholarly article from CULTURAL LOGIC www.clogic.eserver.org offers a useful review and an examination of the contradictions and limitations of the "Austrian School" of economics.

http://clogic.eserver.org/2008/Tittenbrun.pdf

*Note to moderators* Could we possibly get a discussion thread on "Analyzing Libertarian Theory and Practice"?

Even just in relationship to anti-war sentiment in this country, it's important to be able to engage this terrain.

As for Rand Paul, his acceptance speech said nothing about ending any wars...but plenty about restoring America's pride in its capitalist foundations...

Another perspective here...

<i>on post election and (hopefully) prerevolutionary politics...</i>


ok so we should all run out and join the democratic party? -swim in the ocean of bourgeoise politics?-(probably spend most of our time and energies avoiding being eaten by sharks, barracudas and other predatory creatures to be found in such seas.)

OK I'd like to ask a serious question here-what about creating a revolutionary communist party?

what about the "few" focusing their energies and efforts into creating a separate and defined "pole" of revolutionary marxist communism where the oppressed and working class can turn to?

Or,should we urge others to look elsewhere? to join a party such as the RCP or perhaps even consider one of the many other parties on the red left?

<i>Is it presently the task of revolutionary communists to put out a detour sign,blow their whistles,wave their hands redirecting the advanced,the working class over to socialist parties?</i>




If a revolutionary communist party is not desired, not to be held under serious consideration,then why not just join any party which at least has the words <i>revolution and communist</i> in their name.It goes without saying too that there are already numerous parties and organizations out there with the name <i>socialist</i>.



Are we talking about consciously trying to become bolsheviks of a new revolution or are we talking about becoming social democrats who wish we all spend an eternity doing busy work within the democratic party for a new improved bourgeois democracy?

Are we interested in the creation of a new revolutionary communist party with greater adaptive and creative abilities from which to be able
to build a strong party of the Leninist type -highly organized and disciplined.?

I for one am absolutely convinced to the core that there is no other way to make a revolution in this country.

<b>Anything else amounts to nothing less than surrender to the ruling class.</b>

You think the ruling class is stupid? you think they don't want to lure you into their electoral honey trap hypnotizing you with their siren songs of hope and change?
Tthey want more than anything to co-opt you and the movement!

By design,they aim to render harmless potential sources of revolution by inviting more fish to swim in their ocean full of their sharks.

Yes,it is the easy way.
yes it is the comfortable way.
yes it is the relatively painless and risk free way for hope and change.
yes, joining up with the Democratic party gang, or any other party, is very convenient.
.....Just fill out an application form with ( a donation).. put on a stamp on the envelope and drop it in the mail.Easy.

There are many on the left who want to steer the revolutionary movement into taking such a rightward direction.
That is fine for those who do not want to get too close to the sun of revolution.There is a place for such people-members of the various reformist groups,the greens,the libertarians (watch out for the rand and ron pauls of the right! they are poisonous snakes in the grass coming from the tea party,patriot and white supremacist/neo-nazi movements). ..even the democratic party. there is a place for those who prefer this way and revolutionary cuommunists should recognize and develop a strategy on how best to work with such forces.
Those who consider themselves revolutionary communists should help and support show solidarity to such organizations <b> Not join them</i>,rather the urgent task at hand should be to create a revolutionary communist party

The working class and the oppressed do not call out for more tame electoral reformism.We've had enough of BS that for the last 100 years.

Rather, we demand a revolutionary communist party highly organized and disciplined- not afraid of taking on the responsibility of leadershp,of fighting for and advocating taking the road of revolutionary communism...led by people who are fearless,bold,daring and willing to risk all.This is the type of party..these are the type of people the oppessed and working class demand as leaders who only can inspirate and lead the way.

IMHO,we should never lose sight of the inevitable-the dialectically correct analysis that signals us to seek the heartbeat of revolution which is not to be found in the mostly middle-upper-middle class white progressive reformist left,but rather it is to be found beating beneath the breasts of the ranks of the most oppressed sections of the working class..latino,black, people of color, undocumented workers,poor working class whites.

Which leads to the logical conclusion that any organization which considers itself as being revolutionary and communist should understand this and prioritize-focus their policies and direction towards recruiting people of color and or forging powerful alliances-support,aid and propagandize marxist communist ideas into these communities most receptive of revolution.

In a marxist sense..we are entering the <i>endtimes</i>..

Revolution doesn't have the time or luxury during this period of sharp critical crisis of capitalism to get anchored down and mired in electoral politics- getting involved with the democratic party.I believe those who are urging left activists most likely have good intentions(there are others I'm sure who in some cases are attempting to get revolutionaires mired in an endless quagmire -a swamp of bourgeoise politics)..but in the context of proletarian revolution such good intentions are not enough and in a worse case scenario fits the old saying.."the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

I believe,those who wish the movement to take the presumptious circuitous road to revolution should at least have the integrity and honesty to announce that they are facsimile reformist social democrats of the menshevik variety.Not revolutionary communists of the bolshevik variety.

I'm sure some will roll their eyes and mumble "there they go again those damn communists always digging up ancient history which doesn't apply to this modern sophisticated capitalist world we live in today"...(which to many on the progressive reformist left is more than likely incredibly unfathomable,incomprehensible ... <i>overwhelming</i>
.

Sorry,Marx-Lenin-Mao are tremendously powerful sources of knowledge and inspiration.Even though different people see different things in these works and draw their own conclusions ..the main thing is understanding how history works,to be able to recognize the dialectically universal valid aspects of revolutionary history.

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.Workers of all countries...unite!"

This old quote is just as relevant in the 21st century as it was in the 19th.

RE Proyect: the Democratic Party opposes all sorts of things, Louis, so what? Our PDA group supports 'Out Now!' and HR 676, among other things, that the White House opposes. Does it cause a conflict? Certainly, that's the whole point.

As for the Marcellous Shale, Rendell, much to the ire of our local GOP Tea Party, has put a temporary restraint on drilling on state land. Our Dem Senator, Bob Casey, takes an even better position for extraction taxes, stronger safety regulation and expansion of the PA Dept of Environmental Protection, along with better federal EPA standards.

Are there conflicts in the Democratic Party on the matter? Of course. So why retreat from the battlefield? That's why our local PDA group joined the protest in the streets of Pittsburgh AND why we supported local candidates with a better approach to the Marsellous Shale. They lost to the GOP/Tea Party, 60-40, but that's another matter. You don't necessarily win every battle, but that's no reason not to fight.

As for ChicanoFuturet, relax, no one is asking you to sign up and pay dues to the Dems. I never have, and even framing it that way means you don't know much about how the Democratic party operates. It's not a membership organization like a trade union. It's a clustered coalition of all sorts of factions, incumbent groups, coalitions and networks. You do join PDA by making a donation, but it has no formal connection to the Democratic Party. It's an independent PAC that operates inside and outside of their arena.

Carl Davidson: As for the Marcellous Shale, Rendell, much to the ire of our local GOP Tea Party, has put a temporary restraint on drilling on state land.

---

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/20100908_Rendell__No_drilling_moratorium.html
Rendell: No drilling moratorium
By Sean D. Hamill

There won't be a Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling moratorium in Pennsylvania while Ed Rendell is governor - even if that means only four more months.

Before he made a speech Tuesday in Washington, Pa., in his ongoing push for a "significant" natural gas severance tax, Rendell told a group of two dozen protesters worried about the drilling that a moratorium like New York state has enacted will never happen here.

"I would like tomorrow to be able to comb my hair in a pompadour," the balding Rendell told one of the protesters, "but it's not going to happen."

The first reason, he said, is "because I disagree with you; I think we can find a balance" between encouraging the natural gas industry growth and keeping the environment safe.

Told by one protester that it might have a better chance if Rendell got behind it, the Democratic governor - who is ending his eight-year tenure this year due to term limits - quipped: "If I got behind it, it might have even less support in the [Republican-controlled] Senate."

Instead of a moratorium, he said, Pennsylvanians concerned about the effects of natural gas drilling should join him in pushing the Legislature to enact a "robust severance tax" over the next month...

Money from that tax could be used to help - in a revenue-sharing deal - local governments deal with some of the concerns about industry trucks' impact on local roads and to help boost state revenue coffers which could mean more enforcement, he said.

He didn't win any converts from the group of protesters, though.

"I want a moratorium," Jet Miskis, a wildlife artist from Peters, told the governor. "I mean, can you explain to me why cattle are dying out here?"

Gas industry officials, legislative leaders and both gubernatorial candidates agree that a moratorium is a bad idea and has no chance for passage in the Legislature.

Has anyone else noticed how much the Tea Party resembles Brownshirts. They actually beat up people who come to protest their rallies. They talk about loading their guns for battle. With who? They barely know we exist. Is this some beginning of an actual dictatorship of the ruling capitalist classes, as liberals as the scapegaot enemies?

I'm just wondering what to expect as we organize in these future years. These good'ol' boy rednecks seem armed and dangerous. I don't expect the next few years to be an easy time of it. That's not to say I'm giving up. I plan to work with socialist parties also.

Your story on Rendell is behind the times, Louis. Read this one from Oct 27:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10300/1098288-454.stm

In any case, I doubt it, the temporary moratorium on new drilling on state land, will last. We have a Tea Party endorsed GOPer coming in as governor now, plus a clear GOP majority in the statehouse. They have the upper hand.

But we also had Dem State Senator Jim Ferlo and a Pittsburgh city councilman at the rally yesterday, along with Mel Packard, the Green Party's candidate for Senate. On this issue, they're working well together.

The struggle continues.

on the tea party and brownshirts.

It is interesting how the tea party has a "national socialist" or in this case "white socialist" character. Many reporters have noticed how most of the tea party rallies are filled with people getting government checks --welfare-- in one form or another (unemployment, medicare, disability, social security etc.) And they never see any contradiction in railing against govt spending while they cruise around in motorized scooters provided by medicare.

Matt Taibi wrote about it in Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=0 />
And the Financial Times did a tea bagger piece. The couple in the photo are both getting disability checks.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/88143c46-e1e1-11df-b18d-00144feabdc0.html


but Taibi could only say that the tea baggers are "full of shit." Actually they are just racists. They have no problem with the welfare state as long as it is exclusively for white people (the beneficiaries of the New Deal were also primarily white).


I am not sure how far the brownshirt analogy works but one tea party candidate's security "arrested" a journalist. Pretty outrageous. Here is an article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/18/joe-miller-security-guard_n_766010.html

I agree with a lot of what Mike is laying out in his first post. I think that we need to look at <i>what it is</i> elections serve to do in capitalist democracy. They are not simply a playing field where if we could just get our foot in the door we could remake society or be in a position to make revolution. They are a means through which the capitalists solve differences among themselves non-antagonistically and secondarily to give people a sense (and in some ways a real say) in how to run the <i>capitalist</i> system. Now this also isn't one sided. But as I see it, it is the main aspect of bourgeois democracy. But the secondary aspect is that it is hyped with the illusory notion of being a means through which the people can run society and the will of the people is expressed in an essentially classless democratic way. If there is to be any work through the electoral framework it should be to show the true nature of that electoral framework and turn that contradiction around to bite the capitalists in the ass. It would have to be a part of exposing the bourgeois democratic system for the democratic farce that it is. This is an important part of developing a revolutionary polarization in society; this question of alienation from the capitalist ruling structures.

But without a proper development of the objective conditions and of the revolutionary forces to enter into elections, even with "a socialist candidate," it will simply amount to maneuvering within the existing bourgeois democratic framework. Without what Mike is talking about, of an existing and attractive revolutionary communist force in society working on the consciousness of people and its potential work in an electoral framework being <i>a part of that</i>, it will amount to simply working for reforms. It would have to be a tactic as a part of a larger strategy that would not be mainly electoral in character. It would have to be one of working to expose the system, its crimes, its being a fetter to humanity, and of organizing forces and preparing minds for revolution.

I certainly don't think that the main way through which a revolutionary movement will be built will be through politicking within the democratic party. We'd be swallowed up, getting at best some seats in local or even national government (given the "best" outcome) but with still the same capitalist system. Essentially unchanged. It is important to note that it is consciously a part of the capitalists' strategy to try to render revolutionaries impudent by involved them in "coalition governments." They have learned of the demobilization and capitulation that come of that strategy. We should too.

And if the goal is to develop a split within the democratic party as a part of fomenting splits and antagonism among the ruling class, which is an important part of necessary conditions for revolution, then we must realize that the development will be mainly objective. Our main work should at this time should be developing a coherent trend around which people can cohere. One that can be a competing legitimate authority. We can and should work on those contradictions among the ruling class but as Mike said, "...dispersal within the slow moving, controlled medium of Democratic party politics seems to be a plan for encasing radicals in a generally hostile gel. I think we should work in dialogue with the “inside” folks of a more radical kind. But i think shifting the locus of work there would place a powerful rightward pressure on the radicalism of our politics — before we have even learned to articulate it."

In short I think that any work within a the capitalist democratic framework should be subject to time, place, and condition. It would have to be a part of a larger strategy of showing the hollow and criminal nature of that framework. And done only when we had a clear sense, unity, and strategy for making revolution.

Carl, Rendell allowed fracking to take place on state land but backed off only because there was a strong movement in Pennsylvania. We need politicians who have principles, not the disgusting opportunism of the DP "leadership".

http://connect.sierraclub.org/post/Team/Marcellus_Shale_Gas_Drilling/blog/the_inside_story_of_ed_rendells_plot_to_pillage_pennsylvania.html

Drill, Baby, Drill!
The inside story of Ed Rendell's plot to pillage Pennsylvania's forests, consequences be damned.
by Isaiah Thompson
Published: February 17, 2010

Matthew Smith

On March 27, 2009, Michael DiBerardinis, secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), dispatched an unusual memo to his boss, Gov. Ed Rendell.

Though only two pages long, the note was, for career bureaucrat DiBerardinis, uncharacteristically impassioned in its plea that Rendell reconsider his request to lease an additional 40,000 acres of state forest to be drilled for natural gas.

"Wholesale leasing will damage our state forest landscape," DiBerardinis cautioned. "It would scar the economic, scenic, ecological, and recreational values of the forest — especially the most wild and remote areas of our state." This "rush to drill," he continued, threatened to further overburden an already frayed DCNR staff, which would struggle to keep up with its oversight obligations: "Our ability to sustainably manage our state forests is threatened by unplanned, excessive leasing activity."

"Finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, is the environmental legacy you want to leave," the secretary concluded. "One hundred years ago, the land that would become the state's forests was a denuded landscape that was scarred by rampant resource extraction. Our state forest system ... grew from a visionary effort to reclaim this landscape and restore Pennsylvania's citizens their natural birthright. A rush to drill places the state forest and all its benefits at great risk."

One week later, after nearly 15 years of working for Rendell, DiBerardinis resigned as DCNR secretary. Whether Rendell's plan to expand drilling led to DiBerardinis' departure is unclear; DiBerardinis, who now heads Philadelphia's Parks and Recreation Department, declined to comment.

Rendell didn't withdraw his request to lease the forest land. In fact, within a few weeks, he doubled it, to 80,000 acres. And, last week, his office confirmed to City Paper that Rendell intends to lease even more land for drilling this year — some $120 million worth of it. The governor has the authority to do so, with or without the legislature's consent; he could act in a matter of months, if not sooner.

Rendell's enthusiasm for drilling has a simple explanation: The state's forests have suddenly become exponentially more valuablethan at any time in recent history. Across Pennsylvania, a boom is under way — a gold rush, but not for gold.

The Marcellus Shale, a geologic formation that sits beneath much of Pennsylvania, has over the course of just a few years changed the economic, political and, with thousands of wells popping up, even physical landscape of the state. That's because the shale contains natural gas — billions, maybe trillions, of dollars worth of it. And the state has been eyeing that pot of gold for some time. Like casino gambling, it's a way to plug budget holes without raising taxes.

Since most of the current shale drilling takes place on privately owned land, there are only two ways to cash in: The state could tax gas production, as most gas-rich states do. In fact, the budget Rendell proposed last week includes just such a tax. However, the gas lobby is strong, generous with political contributions and, it so happens, averse to taxation. Thus, the eventual passage of Rendell's tax is anything but assured. But there is another way: 60 percent of state-owned forestland, about 1.5 million acres, sits atop the Marcellus Shale. To money-hungry state officials, this fact means there's the potential for billions of dollars in land leases to natural gas drillers — drillers who see the forest, and the shale beneath it, as ripe for exploitation.

Where the powers-that-be and their industry acolytes see dollar signs, however, environmentalists see calamity. Across the state, activists are raising alarms over hazardous drilling practices, insufficient regulation and scores of documented cases of toxic groundwater contamination. These issues, they say, should make Rendell reconsider his designs on the state's forests.

For his part, the governor has made his position crystal clear:

Drill, baby, drill.

@ Mike E.... and CD..


I'm 100% in agreement with you about not becoming a "micro-sect."

I also can appreciate you have become somewhat "snake-bitten" from your not-so-pleasant finale as a high ranking member of the RCP.
I'm equally sure that your wisdom of despising "micro-sects" (RCP) came at a heavy price too.

But,I in order to make myself more clearly understood,I would like to draw what I believe to be a clear distinction between a "micro-sect" and a communist party based on the Leninist model.
A "micro-sect" would, unlike what I advocate,avoid the responsibility of leadership in the revolutionary struggle,avoid the nececssity of daring immersion into the "hot zone" of revolution which is found in the communities of latino,black,other people of color and poor white workers.

I am well aware these "hot zones" (I live in one) are extremely well guarded and repressed by the ruling class and it's immense apparatus of cops,courts,snitches and criminals..and indirectly-gangs.

I am very aware of what our communities represent to the ruling class.The barrios,ghettos the <i>poor towns</i> of america are to the ruling class ticking time bombs,volatile,dangerous and threatening regions of rebellion,sedition and instability which have the explosive potential of igniting wider sections of the working class.

Barrios,ghettos,poor towns are prisons with an ongoing ruling class "lock-down" on the oppressed-
american style SOWETOS (southwesterntownships) where naked military containment of these areas is a matter of life and death to the ruling class.
Opposed to a "micro-sect I am saying it is vital to engage ,and even better, to become immersed in the struggles and communities of the most oppressed peoples where the heart of revolution beats the strongest.I hope I am being understood here.


I can understand why some people would be frightened and intimided to do this,why they would be reluctant to enter such dangerous war zones.I have no illusions or romantic notions of revolution being an adventure or a walk in the park.Mao wasn't bullshitting when he said.."revolution is not a tea party"..

I hope I am understood when I say <i>precisely<i> that in order to avoid becoming a "micro-sect" or a sterile debating team we have to go where the greatest potential exists.

Also,I hope I am understood when I say <i>precisely<i> that "separate" does not in my mind translate into being a micro-sect.In the context of building a party I mean "separate" in the Leninist sense of a higly organized centralized disciplined communist party "separate" from economists,opportunists,liberals and all the array of bourgeoise reformists .
When it comes to an actual revolutionary communist party I don't buy into the liberal notion that a wide unprincipled inclusionism is the proper way of avoiding becoming a "micro-sect".

another aspect that ties into my take on "micro-sects" is that I do appreciate the significance and extreme importance that the mostly white middle upper middle class progressive movement has and continues to play in the advancement of important causes.I am in no way dismissing their importance and vital role in the revolution.When I speak of "the people",of the "working class" of course I include them in that category.If I didn't then I could be justly accused of being a "micro-revolutionary".


Making decisions is not easy,giving leadership is not easy,executing policy is not easy.there is no way around it, no matter what wishful thinking or dreaming may desire.In the real world revolution requires powerful resolute leadership.Leaders are a vital keystone to the structure called revolution.We should appreciate and honor good leaders.

If one does not believe in Lenin's model of the "party" then that is another matter altogether to be debated.

I am in no way using the word to mean being cut off and divided from the people.Lenin's version of the party means building a highly disciplined organized revolutionary core which has the greatest potential to lead and inspire the working class- lead the revolution.

As far as your views on old school vs new school. I think you are in certain respects wrong.
Revolutionary Communists have no "generation gap" problem.

As a matter of fact I would go so far as to say true communists love,respect and cherish what the old timers did -of their incredible struggles,obstacles and sacrifices which they made.We communists do truly stand on the "shoulders of giants". What we study and call history is what they did then.

Perhaps jargon and slang has changed today.

The language and vocabulary of <i>proletarian</i> revolution mean and remain the same no matter if 1848,1917,1949 or 2010..



I don't buy into any determinative "generation gap" hypothesis.I agree,probably it would apply to those who do not have revolutionary communist ideas.In that case our task is to reach out and teach them the language and vocabulary of revolutionary marxism.

But to communists of any age such a gap is a secondary artificial ,superficial - wholely unecessary barrier.

many of the old school communists being battle hardened and scarred from wars past and present with the ruling class have an obligation and duty to pass on and educate the new generation with their experiences and ideas.

When we read Marx,Lenin,Mao they are in fact speaking to us.

I have no problem listening to these old timers even though they lived a long,long time ago.No generation gap there..


<b>Oh,in response to Carl Davidson..</b>

<i>"As for ChicanoFuturet, relax, no one is asking you to sign up and pay dues to the Dems. I never have, and even framing it that way means you don’t know much about how the Democratic party operates."</i>

CD.. you are wrong comrade. I know all too well how the Democratic party operates.
I have fought them for a long,long time.To the Latino community/undocumented workers they are a poisonous and dangerous
force who's goal is to keep Latinos on their plantation


From my experiences all my life living,working,as an activist in the barrio I consider the Democratic party as a nest of snakes ..overwhelmingly full of lying two faced duplicitous rattlers..

I see everyday the concrete and very real devastation they have perpetrated on Latinos...their treachery,lies and cynical exploitation,manipulation of the Latino community.

Sorry CD,I do not wear nor have I the luxury and privilege of sporting "rose colored glasses".

<i> So you are right... I don't understand the democratic party the way you do...</i>

I don't disagree with you, CFN, on the importance of the oppressed communities you discuss here. We do our best to engage activists from similar ones here, but African American rather than Chicano. Nor do I necessarily disagree with all your characterizations of the local Dem structures. Ours has included very corrupt forces for a very long time. It's one reason we organize separately from them even on the mass democratic level, as PDA, so we can pick and chose allies and battles.

As for socialist organization, many of our members spent many years in Leninist groups of various sorts. It's well know I was in the national leadership of two of them in the 1970s and 1980s that were convinced they were following 'the Leninist model', yet they collapsed. I think what you have to come to grips with is that the 'Leninist model' concept has become 'essentially contested,' meaning that you have to define it your way in order to use it. It's like 'good Christian,' another essentially contested concept.

One conclusion I've come to is that every new and successful revolution breaks the mold of those that have gone before it. Time, place and circumstance are always changing, and that means the 'Leninist model', at least in many respects, has to be remade, too. Having said that, I'm still an admirer of the organizational skill and tradecraft of both Lenin and Chou En-Lai, among others, and tend toward orthodoxy on the matter, sometimes to a fault. Others take different views, even here, on this site.

If you are actually out organizing people with the views you project here, then I'd guess we are struggling with the same chapter, if not on the same page.

@ Carl Davidson,

Listen comrade, what you are talking about and what Chicanofuturet are talking about are seriously different. There are very different understandings, methods, and approaches here. There are different lines. I'm not saying don't raise what you think, please do. Please disagree and advocate for what you think. <i>But it is important that we do not cover over differences.</i> We must air these differences in order for people to compare and contrast them and see which ones actually hold up to reality, and to what degree.

There are very different understandings of the democratic party, of capitalist democracy, and of what revolution is and is not. Lets look at what it is that you say about the democratic party and what Chicanofuturet say. Chicanpfuturet says, "From my experiences all my life living,working,as an activist in the barrio I consider the Democratic party as a nest of snakes ..overwhelmingly full of lying two faced duplicitous rattlers.." You say, "It’s a clustered coalition of all sorts of factions, incumbent groups, coalitions and networks." That is a very different take on the democrats. Not that there isn't any truth to it. But there is very different take on its class character and who's interests it fundamentally serves.

The democratic party isn't a level playing field; nor can it be leveled. We can't co-opt it into something progressive. It is in its main character a capitalist-imperialist party. In its secondary aspect it has progressive people within it. But they are utterly subordinated to its leadership and the interests of capital. There is no strategy for revolution in trying to "take over" the democratic party. Yes, we must understand its contours, contradictions, and struggles. But this should be a part of winning people away from that party. Not mashing revolutionaries into a part of the "pit of rattlers" and subordinating ourselves to imperialist leadership. Whether it be in the name of inclusivity, "pressuring" the democrats, or "winning people over." Because with this strategy revolutionaries lose their revolutionary character.

There is a question of what one is out to do. Is one out to make revolution? Or is one out to try to reform what is? I have secondary disagreements with what Chicanofuturet said. But the main character of what is being posed here, is that question, Who will we stand with?

Read my views more closely, 'classless.'

My language isn't so colorful as CFN's 'nest of rattlers', but I've never claimed that the Democratic Party could be reformed, taken over, have its playing field leveled or any other such thing. I do work with others who do share some of those illusions, but that's another matter and not our perspective. I've also said that the Dems are run at the top, with a firm grip, by finance capital. In fact, it's one of their instruments.

But that's also exactly why it's important to develop a set of tactics to deconstruct it. I'm sure I have some differences with you, CFN and others here in that regard, but our differences aren't over the fundamental class character of the Democratic Party or its role as an obstacle to the emancipation of the working class and the oppressed.

Likewise we share the more basic goal of socialism. But we may indeed not share views on the role of structural reforms and winning the battles for democracy in getting there. That's part of the ongoing debate here. But to move it forward, it serves us all to focus on the actual differences, not imagined ones.

Carl, you state, restate, and defend your views about working within the Democratic Party out here on a daily basis, tirelessly and subtly as you can. Though I seldom find myself in agreement with you on the major question, I do think that our debate benefits from having to deal with the positions you raise. You force us to deal with the "best" arguments for entering the sea of the DP to fight for reforms and build both progressive and socialist blocs, rather than straw-men.

What I want to ask, Carl, is how much energy, you and PDA devote to really calling out Obama, the Party leadership, and the ruling class in general within, say, Democratic Party blogs, meetings, and other forums. How sharply are you really able to raise the key questions of our moment before you run afoul of the limits of DP discourse?

I was just looking through PDA's website, and ran across this article by Tom Hayden on the implications the elections will have for the "anti-war" bloc in Congress. http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/alliances/2010-11-04-00-49-09-alliances.php

One thing that stood out to me in the article: there is NO discussion whatsoever given to the fundamental immorality, or the imperial implications of US occupations in Iraq or Afghanistan. NO mention of a single Afghani victim of the war. The arguments against the war given focus on its "costs" to the US, in human lives and dollars, as well as its "cost" in terms of lost US prestige in the world. (That is to say, the loss of US RULING CLASS prestige.--According to Lenin's "revolutionary defeatism" isn't this loss of prestige for the rulers actually one of the potentially *blessings* of a lost war!?)

I want to ask you, Carl: what are the implications of these ommissions? Even assuming that PDA is able to bring forward people (whether within or without the DP) into "anti-war" activism or advocacy on the basis of such a nationalist "cost"-reduction line, what long-term good will such "anti-war" sentiment actually serve?...It seems to me that Tom Hayden's approach is schooling people in a way of thinking about the world that ducks the most crucial--and yes, within the DP, "controversial"--issues. A betrayal of internationalism really.

Is there anywhere within your organization's work that you are able to raise questions about empire, oppression, international solidarity? I see little evidence on the PDA website to indicate this.

To get a full set of my views, just do a search on my name here on Kasama.

On the national PDA site, you'll find a range of views spanning the left and progressive spectrum. There's no 'correct line' other that PDA's general orientation.

For an approach closer to mine in PDA, you can follow the work of our local chapter on http://beavercountyblue.org You can find reports of meetings and actions there.

But we rarely have gone to local Democratic Party meetings. In fact, they hardly ever have any. Their better people come to ours. We have met with our Blue Dog Congressman, and attended his public appearances, and have taken him on on the issues at hand, quite a few times.

Finally, CCDS is my Marxist group. The Marxists are a small minority in PDA, which is as it should be. Our PDA's platform is 'Out Now!' on the wars, HR 676 on Health Care, HR 5204 and Green Jobs, EFCA for union rights, and debt relief for students and homeowners. It's a platform to unite a progressive majority with a wide range of views, on the order of a popular front vs finance capital.

This Analysis of the Election from the World Socialist Wesbite is worth checking out:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/pers-n06.shtml

One important point it makes is that it is quite possible that the Tea Party and the Republican "surge" is actually the result of a left-shift (not a right shift) amongst much of the population. Those who shifted left, growing more dissatisfied with the entire political and corporate establishment didn't turn out to vote at all...Thus giving the appearance of a right-ward shift...

No doubt an overly optimistic reading...

WSW is a good example of how NOT to do an assessment. It has a priori conclusions already formed, and takes snippets of reality to back it up.

Here, for instance, 'apologists for Obama' and the reformist left can only be 'upper middle class.' It ignores the fact that Obama's strongest base and group of defenders remains among older Black workers. Even if they are unhappy with him and current conditions, they place the blame on the GOP and turn out to vote. Besides, what is 'upper middle class'?

Nor does staying away from elections indicate any major shift to the left. Most studies of nonvoters show they span the entire political spectrum, and tilt leftward only by a few points.

But it's true the election wasn't a simple shift rightward. I went door-to-door with the AFL-CIO here for the last two days. Many were just fed up with the Dems. Our local union candidates for the statehouse lost 40-60, mainly due to people staying home and anger with Obama over the economy.

In our view, the GOP/Tea Party base, the lower end of it with incomes around 50-60K per year, aren't suffering personally--yet. They have nonunion jobs, small businesses, and health insurance. But only barely. They are stressed, worried, and clinging to protect what they think they have. They see a limited pie, and if more people get a piece, their piece gets smaller or becomes just crumbs. They also have racialized any redistribution measures; they see the Dem's 'socialism' as Tim Wise nailed it: Black people taking white peoples stuff, with Obama in charge of getting the stuff away from them. That's what 'we're taking our country back!' is all about, and why anti-Obama sentiment among votes has a double edge.

Chris Hedges on the post-election landscape:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_recipe_for_fascism_20101108/

A very different take on the Tea Party ffom Guardian UK:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/08-6

This article places this movement in perspective in a way that I believe aids us in assessing the current political landscape in the U.S.

Counterpunch posted this "Open Letter to the Tea Party" as their "Website of the Day" recently.

It's an interesting example of an attempt to unite with the libertarian element of the movement and take it in an anti-military (objectively anti-imperialist?) direction.

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/open-letter-to-the-tea-party