I would argue that people who think Gramsci is a social-democrat simply don't understand him. I would add that he is most important as a strategist and tactician for non-revolutionary or pre-insurrectionary conditions. Those who would cling to applying a strategy or tactics more appropriate in a period of revolutionary crisis or upsurge regardless, are likely to be prone to seeing social-democrats everywhere, even where they are not. These days we find ourselves in alliance with social-democrats on a wide range of political matters, from HR 676 to full employment battles. We have an independent approach, but we work together nonetheless.

supporting HR 676 and supporting mass murderers to be your elected leaders are two entirely different things - the first being an appropriate alliance, the second indefensible.

I have a suggestion, JP, if we're to have a sane discussion. The first one to mention Hitler or reduce Obama to 'mass murderer', loses.

carl davidson declares the battle cry of 'sanity' to be "Maintain All Illusions!" what's next, "Abuse the People!" ?

I don't believe I've pegged Obama as representing 'an enlightened section of capital', certainly not as POTUS. I've said he represents a faction of imperialism, particularly the 'soft power' globalists, and that his 'Team of Rivals' in his cabinets includes both neoliberals and neo-Keynesians, with the former having the upper hand. That mass murder has taken place under his watch and at his command is a matter of fact, and I'm not one to deny or prettify it in away way.

The question you have to answer is not whether he's friend or foe, but where he is among foes, and if there's a difference that makes any difference to us, as to whether or not we're indifferent as to who is POTUS. As for myself, I haven't answered this yet for 2012. I want to see who the GOP puts up and the platforms concerned.

In any case, the main task of electoral work is to build up our own strength in various ways, come what may.

"That mass murder has taken place under his [obama's] watch and at his command is a matter of fact, and I’m not one to deny or prettify it in away way," says carl davidson after having done just that. well, retraction noted.

In fairness, Carl said: "The first one to mention Hitler or reduce Obama to ‘mass murderer’, loses."

*Reducing* Obama to a mass murderer is different from *acknowledging* him as a mass murderer. Carl and probably anyone participating in Kasama discussions is well aware of the fact that as POTUS, Obama has hands that are drenched in blood. But reducing Obama to nothing more than a mass murder via his role as POTUS is simplistic ultraleftism and ignores the fact that there are differences between different members of the ruling class and that revolutionaries can find opportunities by being aware of and exploiting those differences and yes sometimes even through tactical limited support of bourgeois politicians.

Agreed, John. Now we can go on about Obama's crimes, but what I'd like to do is discuss Gramsci, blocs, and wars of position today in the more concrete situations in which they arise--school reform, jobs for the unemployed, especially youth, health care and social security, financial transaction taxes and other structural reforms, and so on.

carl davidson: thanks for agreeing. i guess i haven't 'lost the argument' after all.

acknowledging someone as a mass murderer is not simply nice political judgement. presumably we are interested in a world which sees mass murder as unacceptable. this website discussion is just sound and fury otherwise.

if remembering and considering the lives of your sisters and brothers who get slaughtered daily by obama is uncomfortable, then discussion of "Gramsci, blocs, and wars of position today in the more concrete situations in which they arise–school reform, jobs for the unemployed, especially youth, health care and social security, financial transaction taxes and other structural reforms, and so on" are irrelevant.

john w. said: "reducing Obama to nothing more than a mass murder via his role as POTUS is simplistic ultraleftism..." to be fair, since no one so reduced him, another retraction is in order.

(and by the way, i'm concerned about eruptions of the infantile disorder that causes ill-considered accusations of 'ultraleftism.')

yet If someone were to so reduce obama to a mass murderer, they would be much closer to the truth than the illusions peddled by carl davidson. Reminders of this truth serve to deflate attempts to encourage support for someone whose hands are "drenched in blood."

'Uncomfortable' is not a term I'd use to describe my feelings towards Obama's slaughter of innocents (or even not-so-innocent) in various parts of the world. Anger certainly, or frustration and disgust--but in any case, it's really not about my feelings. It's about how we get from where we are now to a new order replacing capitalism with socialism.

From that perspective, JP, regarding your judgment of 'irrelevant' to the various matters I raised, I'd just ask, 'irrelevant to whom?' Perhaps to you, but that doesn't count for much either. It's not about you.

We get back to the old divide--politics as self-expression and politics as strategy. Again, given the top topic of this thread, I'm still looking for a different discussion.

you're having a laugh, sure, with that "it's not about you...'?

so i'll again make the simple and relevant point that 'supporting HR 676 and supporting mass murderers to be your elected leaders are two entirely different things – the first being an appropriate alliance, the second indefensible.'

now let's discuss.

Good. HR 676, or Medicare for All, while not socialized medicine, is still a worthy structural reform in the direct interest of practically the entire working class. (There are a few who come entirely under the VA or other 'Cadillac' insurance plans, but these are a small minority). Medicare for all is a radical structural reform in that it puts the major health insurance firms out of business, redirecting their profits into the direct payment of health services for everyone. It delivers more services to more people at a lower cost than any of the schemes of either party that leave the insurance companies intact.

After doing a survey among Beaver County residents, we took the issue directly to the working class here in Western PA, in the form of PDA's 'Healthcare Not Warfare' campaign. Over several years, we managed to get every union, every labor council, state labor bodies, our county commissioners and the city councils of several cities to sign on to HR 676. We took the working class and the minority communities as our core alliance, but reached out to retirees and middle strata as well. It was a 'long march through the institutions' that encircled out Blue Dog Congressman, who joined with the GOP in trying to defeat both HR 676 and weaken, if not defeat, Obama's half-measure as well.

Two things are fairly clear. First, the present balance of forces in the Congress is not going to pass HR 676. Second, eventually they will have to, for the simple reason that none of the other proposals will work and people are not going to voluntarily die in the streets while medical care is possible.

So how do we expand our historic bloc and strengthen our strongholds in a war of position?

I would argue that we have to find ways to divide the business sector, primarily by appealing to those who understand that single-payer is in their interests as well. It would take the primary burden off the individual employer to provide the funding for health insurance directly, and then have to recoup the cost by building it into the cost of their products, putting them at a competitive disadvantage.

We will still have to fight to maintain the independent role and voice of the working class in this bloc, but there's no reason why we shouldn't find ways to pursue it, isolating and eventually defeating all those forces who want to put 'Medicare for All' off the table, or off into the distant future.

Carl: Amazing how you constantly pull every conversation you make back to supporting Obama. Despite denouncing social democratic appropriation of his works in your first comment, in your last post (#13) you in fact employ a social-democratic reading of Gramsci and the idea of a "long march through the institutions." Just to get things straight, this phrase was never used by Gramsci but was coined by Rudi Dutschke in the 1960s. Nonetheless I usually see it referring to working on building revolutionary influence and presence in academia, the media, and other cultural institutions to promote revolutionary consciousness; other than from you, I haven't heard anyone with the balls to try to use the term to describe political canvassing or knocking on doors for the Democrats.

Robaina in this piece at least understands that much. On the other hand, Robaina's article is similar to other scholarship by some pro-Trotsky writers in that no one, including Gramsci in this case, seems to ever really be against Trotsky's ideas. It's always just some misunderstanding. He also quotes Nahuel Moreno about how dictatorial regimes are able to freeze revolutions at a democratic stage. In many cases, even Russia or China to an extent, the failure of revolutions can be chalked up to the primitive productive forces and social relations that weren't ready to be jumped over to socialism. Gaining hegemony in the Gramscian sense in the minds of people is a necessary prerequisite, not an option, if you want to have socialism.

Coming off of a discussion yesterday with a couple comrades, on the value and nature of the Internet as a transformative phenomenon in contemporary society, I have to question the assumed inability of the proletariat to have the means to achieve some kind of cultural hegemony before a socialist revolution. The relative strength of many of the ideological state apparatuses of the capitalist system have been in decay for decades: look at, say, church attendance or voter turnout, even factoring in the growth of Christian fundamentalism or Obamamania. Or that there is, in fact, a real radical/anti-capitalist presence in academia in the United States that has come into existence since the 1960s upsurges. The ruling class in the United States maintains their ideological hegemony largely through controlling the mass media, which are the primary ways that people are trained on how and what to think. Once people begin to find their own voice using new technology, and there is a shift in consciousness in that direction, the game is over.

I'm quite aware that Rudi Dutschke was the one who coined the phrase 'long march through the institutions' as part of his understanding of Gramsci, which was a deep and good one, and not Gramsci himself. And I'm not turning this back to support for Obama, since Team Obama in fact is opposing HR 676.

There a a number of major firms interested in single payer for their own interests, from Walmart to others in the auto industry. But the points about their being conflicted on the matter are quite right. But that's part of the task in dealing with forces like these, finding ways to turn those conflicts in our direction.

Nor have I made any illusions about our current Congress. In fact, I stated quite flatly that it WOULD NOT go for single payer. But over time, especially as the flaws in the current approach to health insurance become more unmasked and the crisis around it deepens, other possibilities will open up. If none do, and you want to argue than today's capitalism lacks any such flexibility--which may be true in practice even if not in theory-- then a revolutionary crisis appears on the horizon even earlier than it might otherwise.

A social-democratic policy would be one that would ignore or oppose any preparation for an insurrectionary period. I have always argued otherwise, and have used Gramscian arguments to do so.

<i>"There is a social democratic reading of Gramsci that seems to skip over “The Modern Prince.” This is where he discusses the crucial necessity of coalescing a revolutionary agent that can meet the requirements of the historical tasks at hand, in this case the revolutionary party to make socialist revolution. If we just concentrated on “hegemony” and concerned ourselves only with alliances and shifting relations between them, then we would get Gramsci as a social democrat. However, such alliances must be led by a force which can negotiate various needs and tensions while driving towards its revolutionary goal. This force, the party, must be have a core with deep ties to a base or it will not be able to maintain strategic firmness. This is Gramsci the revolutionary."</i>



Let's be honest here, and not make the mistake of assuming the existence of things that simply do not exist objectively in this country.
We should not be subjective,overestimating our actual strengths and positions in society..

Even key political social preconditions for revolution Gramsci delineates are mostly non-existent in the US.
There is and has not been for a long time any significant ongoing stable mass support nor bases established in US society.

Assumed parameters such as significant mass based competing revolutionary organizational/ideological tendencies,revolutionary party vs social democratic party,barely exist in the US in any meaningful and relevant way.

Looking at the US objectively today,the american left,communist organizations,movements,cannot be considered in even the most minimal way in terms of mass support and base,they are neither in the "ballpark" nor are they serious "players" in the political context Gramsci bases his analysis on.

Social democratic aka "socialist parties",organizations,for the most part are tiny relatively insignificant isolated clusters of activists having different alliances,shifting relations betweeen themselves and other affinity progressive,liberal organizations,coalitions of people of color..etc etc based upon a wide range of timely issues and causes..

Revolutionary communist parties,for all intents and purposes are non-existent,irrelevant,sectarian..<i> disconnected</i> "no shows,non-players" in american political life....

Essentially,there is no significant "revolutionary agent" in the USA during this time in US history.
Of the exisitng organizations They are for the most part either sectarian,revisionist,communist parties,or parties which identify themselves as being "socialists" but in actuality have essentialy social democratic political programs,lines..

Exceptional organizations such as the Kasama Project have made it clear they do not prioritize,in any urgent sense, the creation of a revolutionary communist party.They do not state,infer, this aspect as any immediate or long range goal..we can only assume they consider such a task non-critical for the advancement of the proletariat along the road of revolution...(a road which unfortunately in the US has historically led to too many detours and dead ends)..

So,in the context of an actual revolutionary organization-being a Gramsci "revolutionary agent" -with a core leadership,disciplined structure and cadre,a well defined revolutionary political program,
Kasama cannot be considered a "direct" revolutionary agent ,but rather pushes an 'Indirect" momentum of influence,education,debate and discussion on a wide range of issues and ideas.Basically Kasama is a forum....a loosely knit collective..not a revolutionary communist party.
Kasama makes no pretensions of being one,so that is honest fine and fair..

..so basically what we are left with are the RCP's,the CPUSA's..and all the other so called "socialist" organizations..hardly "revolutionary agents"..

I would imagine that if Gramsci were alive today he would be very hard pressed to find any "revolutionary agents" in the USA....

If we are honest,not under the spell of too many metaphysical illusions,we can clearly see that the US Communist Project has a terrible track record,has for the most part been a failure.
I think this warrants trying to experiment,try to do things differently,try new,ideas,approaches..

Comrade CD's social democratic tendencies deserve a fair hearing,we should listen and consider what he has to say..
Are we so dogmatic,that we think we are too ideologically "pure" "above" to even consider CD's message even if it is tinged with social democratic and reformist content?

I believe we could try some of the approaches CD proposes... and more..,and yes,do so as revolutionary communists..Marxists-Leninists-Maoists..

It's a matter of executing plans from a position of strength.The key factor here is that <i> communists must direct,be in charge...in control</i> of these strategies and tactics,without risking becoming co-opted or capitulating to the ruling class,neo-liberals...
if we are strong we can do so..
and it is my sincere belief here that in order to have said strength and control we must have a disciplined organized revolutionary communist party at the helm..

Overall,the way I see it without a revolutionary communist party leading the way..there will be no "revolutionary agent" as well as little or no likelyhood of a revolution occurring in this country..

<blockquote>The relative strength of many of the ideological state apparatuses of the capitalist system have been in decay for decades: look at, say, church attendance or voter turnout, even factoring in the growth of Christian fundamentalism or Obamamania. Or that there is, in fact, a real radical/anti-capitalist presence in academia in the United States that has come into existence since the 1960s upsurges. The ruling class in the United States maintains their ideological hegemony largely through controlling the mass media, which are the primary ways that people are trained on how and what to think. Once people begin to find their own voice using new technology, and there is a shift in consciousness in that direction, the game is over.</blockquote>

The people know they're being lied to and manpulated by the media though. That's the first step.

Apropos of your larger point, Gallup released this poll on the state of U.S. institutions a few days ago.

<blockquote>Gallup has asked Americans to say how much confidence they have in a variety of U.S. institutions a total of 35 times since 1973, including annual updates since 1993. This year's results are based on a June 9-12 Gallup poll.

Little has changed in Americans' confidence in institutions over the past year. The only notable difference was a significant increase in Americans' confidence in television news, from 22% to 27%. There was also a slight, but not statistically meaningful, increase in confidence in newspapers (from 25% to 28%). Confidence in the police is down 3 percentage points, a change that is also within the poll's margin of sampling error.

In a year in which labor unions have been in the news for public employee union battles with state governments over benefits and bargaining rights, Americans' confidence in organized labor did not change (20% in 2010 vs. 21% in 2011).

Confidence in Military Bucks Larger Trend in Declining Confidence

From a broader perspective, confidence in most of the institutions this year is below the historical average for each. These depressed figures likely reflect Americans' current dissatisfaction with the way things are going in the country, in large part due to the state of the economy. This year's ratings of banks, Congress, and the presidency are the most below their historical average.



The most notable exception to the general pattern of lower confidence is for the military, whose 78% reading this year is 11 points higher than its historical average. Americans tend to express much greater confidence in the military when the U.S. is actively engaged in military operations, as in an 85% rating in Feb.-March 1991 just after the first Persian Gulf War ended and ratings between 69% and 82% over the last decade coinciding with U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The military has been the top ranked institution each year since 1998 and from 1989 to 1996. In 1997, when small business was added to the survey for the first time, it edged out the military by 63% to 60%.

The church or organized religion was the top institution in the eight measurements conducted from 1973 through 1985. Confidence in the church declined in 1986, with the military surpassing it in confidence that year for the first time. Confidence in the church has yet to return to its pre-1986 levels.</blockquote>

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148163/americans-confident-military-least-congress.aspx

Very troubling that, in an era of generalized deligitimization of the major bourgeois institutions, the military is pulling 78% and the police 56%. This is something we have to work to change.

<blockquote>Nor have I made any illusions about our current Congress. In fact, I stated quite flatly that it WOULD NOT go for single payer. But over time, especially as the flaws in the current approach to health insurance become more unmasked and the crisis around it deepens, other possibilities will open up. If none do, and you want to argue than today’s capitalism lacks any such flexibility–which may be true in practice even if not in theory– then a revolutionary crisis appears on the horizon even earlier than it might otherwise.</blockquote>

I'm definitely leaning towards the possibility of a revolutionary crisis opening up sooner than we think.

Obama appears set to sacrifice part of Medicare and/or Medicaid on the alter of the bond market's demand for deficit reduction. Citizens United I think put the fork in any possibility of really bucking any of the major business lobbying groups. It would take a nearly impossible constitutional amendment to overturn it. (Or an unlikely shift in the balance of the court.)

The thing is, even if Obama and Congress take a hatchet to the budget, the bond market might still decide to whack us anyway. If that happens, say goodbye to the Dollar as the world's reserve currency That would be huge. King Dollar is one of the chief instruments of U.S. imperialism.

Good, Red Fly. Now with the materials at hand, how do we begin to wage the Gramscian 'war of position' and 'war of movement' under these conditions, current and probable?

The current single-payer movement is focused on two tasks--the election of more single-payer advocates to Congress and state legislatures via groups like PDA, which need to be made stronger as well (war of position) and mass campaigns in selected states to win single payer on a state level, which combines both war of position and war of movement. Vermont is the recent advance; California is waiting in the wings.

Within all of these, there are line struggles and other debates over tactics with a range of views--how do we relate to the GOP effort to repeal Obamacare, how do we take the position of Physicians for National Health Care into wider acceptance in the trade unions, especially SEIU, how do we handle the differences between the National Nurses Union and SEIU, how do we work with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, how do we unite un-insured young people with families and older people in need of better health care, how do we oppose the deficit hawks in all this?

So if you want to test your mettle against a ruling class organizing for a train wreck, there's lots to work with here....

Red Fly writes: "I’m definitely leaning towards the possibility of a revolutionary crisis opening up sooner than we think."

Perhaps this should be modified to read "crisis with revolutionary possibility." But then we are back to CFuturenet's point about the absence of an organized revolutionary force/party. Could one develop in the midst of a crisis that ruptures (or at least strains incredibly) the shackles of bourgeois democracy? Is the party the prerequisite to seizing power, or could a variety of forces push -- from right andd left -- against the status quo and a revolutionary party emerge from the battlefield? If this crisis is sooner than we think then we'd better imagine this possibility also (otherwise despair).

Polls cannot give us the glimpses we need into the unconscious of the mainstream. Discontent and the loss of faith in the institutions means something qualitatively different under the context of existing bourgeois democracy and the ruling class intact. It is a fool's errand to reckon discontent as a shift towards revolutionary consciousness.

The first impulse of the maninstream when a ruptures does occur will be to fight like hell to keep the current system working. If we don't get this, then we will be unprepared to handle the tidal waves of patriotism, of appealing to the Founding documents, of begging for the police and army to restore stability, even as the system implodes. If this fails and the rupture brings the collapse of functioning institutions, of military revolt and mutinies, of right-wing demogogues agitating for a White America, of upsurges of resistance from revolutionary forces, then all bets are off and we are at that profound moment when life cannot be lived as it had been previous.

It is this moment we must prepare for, for in this opening the masses will be seeking anyone who can stabilize the situation. We can do this in a reformist way, or we can do this in a revolutionary way with our eyes always fastened on radically altering consciousness in a revolutionary direction. For now, we must imagine ourselves as the virus in the Matrix, powerful beyond measure because we envision a planet transformed on the basis of creating revolutionary relationships between humans and the ecosphere.

Based on my own research on Gramsci's early activity, he was certainly an advocate of a Bolshevik style party and soviet party. Those interested can look at section VI of the link below that looks at Gramsci's political activity to the founding of the Italian Communist Party.

http://enaadoug.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/actuality-of-revolution/

I find this timely because we were having a discussion about Gramsci in one of the collectives I work with. I don't consider Gramsci a social democrat. I think he was integral to the Italian CP and his writings were made precisely to deal with their failure and limitations but also in broader sense a critique of communist organizing at that time, especially as typified by the politics of Stalin and the Comintern. Always, though, his writings were made with one goal: to figure out how to achieve revolution. One of the main problems in misinterpreting Gramsci I think lies in academia where all sense of class struggle is typically removed from these types of works in favor of post-modernist and deconstructionist critiques. In modern academia I think this has happened to a number of authors who have strong revolutionary roots but are detached from those roots by academia to facilitate post-modern (in most cases bourgeois) critiques.

Gramsci is one of a trio who I think are particularly fetishized and put into this social democratic "reading". One other being Michel Foucalt, who was a vocal supporter of the Maoist and the Vietnamese liberation struggle (he even helped organize a peoples tribunal against French imperialist crimes!) but whose ideas on violence and discourse are now almost totally disassociated from their revolutionary potential. The other one is Paolo Freire, who literally helped organize the Workers Party in Brazil but whose writings on critical pedagogy in this country are treated like savory little bon mots upon which fanciful(i.e. non-materialist) ideas are made about how things could be if we only just learned differently. As if education could single handedly lead to societal change. I guess Foucalt is the hardest to reconcile of these because of his early critiques of Marxism. Still it would be interesting if Kasama also engaged these other author's writings, excavate their revolutionary meaning and save them from the purgatory of so many social democratic interpretations.

What is the "revolutionary way"?

While everyone is quick to scrutinize Carl, at least he has formulated a (however flawed) strategy for revolutionaries to make crucial entries into American political life. I would say that looking for divides within the ruling class through organizing around structural reforms is wrong because they just won't do it, and tnl pointed out plainly why. Isn't their rule over us a shared political project anyway? Even small capital, which you'd assume would be more supportive of measures that would take health insurance (and maybe even energy costs, if we are talking about wind turbines, retrofitting buildings, etc.) off of their inputs, has a commitment to not becoming allies of progressives, seeing that unions and sick leave are never good for their bottom line.

Wouldn't it smarter, in terms of long term mass work, to deviate from working within that sphere (of course, I'm not going to say we should completely forget about it) so that we can engage in more direct action, community building and self-reliance?

"What is decisive is that revolutionaries work within the workers’ movement, among the youth, in the popular and peasant organisations, on the basis of this permanent strategy—to organise from below, to work for unity among them all, and to patiently explain the need to build a new kind of order based on the continuing mobilisation of the masses and on their self-organisation."

This concluding line of the article, in the spirit of Gramsci, seems right to me, in contrast to sectarianism in a void.

Labor shall rule says: <blockquote>...so we can engage in more direct action, community building and self-reliance?"</blockquote>

Those things are always true for any kind of organizing under any strategy. You don't need to study Gramsci for that.

Carl Davidson wrote:

<blockquote>The current single-payer movement is focused on two tasks–the election of more single-payer advocates to Congress and state legislatures via groups like PDA, which need to be made stronger as well (war of position) and mass campaigns in selected states to win single payer on a state level, which combines both war of position and war of movement. Vermont is the recent advance; California is waiting in the wings.

Within all of these, there are line struggles and other debates over tactics with a range of views–how do we relate to the GOP effort to repeal Obamacare, how do we take the position of Physicians for National Health Care into wider acceptance in the trade unions, especially SEIU, how do we handle the differences between the National Nurses Union and SEIU, how do we work with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, how do we unite un-insured young people with families and older people in need of better health care, how do we oppose the deficit hawks in all this?

So if you want to test your mettle against a ruling class organizing for a train wreck, there’s lots to work with here….</blockquote>

Here's the thing, you and I both know that the political system -- the campaigns, the candidates, the media circus, the crowds, the stump speeches, the grassroots mobilization, voting, waiting for election night returns to come in, moping after defeat, celebrating after "victory," all of it -- the whole sorry fucking spectacle -- essentially amounts to pro wrestling. The Republicans play the role of uber-villain for the left, the Democrats play the same for the right. The two run around pretending to hate each other. There's a lot flexing and trash talking, a lot of well-staged choreography, inspiring theme songs, sharp outfits and an illusion of competition.

Almost all of this shit is meaningless in terms of what actually gets decided in this country and by/for whom. The purpose of this ridiculous nonsense to make people think that they have some say in what goes on. They don't. Republican, Democrat...some differences on the margins, but the basic policy has been decided long in advance by the big bourgeoisie, at the head of which are the international banksters, the most rapacious sons of bitches that have ever walked the planet.

The economic policy, no matter who gets elected, is neoliberalism. Privatize everything, attack workers relentlessly, espouse "libertarian" philosophy while shoveling millions of dollars to politicians in order to manipulate the state in your favor, slash social spending, blame brown people for the social disaster you create.

The foreign policy is imperialism. Invade, occupy, murder millions of brown people, make money for your good buddies in the "defense" industry and set yourself up for a nice cushy job when you retire from "public service."

Of course the two go hand in hand.

While theoretically the system is still capable of offering up reforms, it has for all practical purposes been been rendered irrelevant by the corporations and the plutocrats that run them. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, presidents, senators, House members, judges, generals and bureaucrats, members of media -- they all serve the same master. And almost all of them do so with great enthusiasm. They enjoy kissing the ring.

So...when you talk about running candidates that support single payer, working the Congressional Progressive Caucus, SEIU, etc., I worry that this sort of work serves, in the end, to support the illusions that allow this capitalist-imperialist system and the criminal bourgeois clique that runs it to exist. I know that you and your organization talk about socialism and about how bourgeois democracy isn't real democracy, but I can't help but think that by putting so much emphasis on electoral politics that some folks are left with the impression that they can actually change shit by voting. This is why I think that, despite your eloquent advocacy for your strategy, the road you're on is headed toward a dead end.

And I say this not to denigrate you personally, Carl. I take you as a sincere communist who desires to help bring about socialist revolution in this country. But I just have trouble seeing how putting so much emphasis on the electoral swindle serves to expose the bankruptcy of the system.

Maybe I'm wrong though, so let me ask a couple of questions.

In your work, do you make clear to the folks who belong to your group and the to the people you try to get to vote for progressive Dems that this system is an utter sham? Do you make it clear to your members that the main reason why they're spending so much time on electing Democrats is because you're seeking to expose them and the system they are a part of? Do you make it clear to your members and to the folks you talk to that there's zero possibility of achieving single payer healthcare, no matter how many self-styled progressives you help elect, within the foreseeable future? Do you make it clear to the people that the system is bought-and-paid-for at every single level? Do you actively seek to discredit the Democratic Party when you're advocating for people to vote for them?

I think there's a big difference between entering electoral politics mainly for the purposes of exposing and delegitimizing the system on the one hand, and giving people false hope and maintaining the system's illusions by seriously supporting the Democratic Party on the other.

If we're talking about a Gramscian war of position in relation to the electoral system, I think we have to find a way to make it clear to the people that the whole thing is a sham, that they'll never change anything of fundamental significance through this bought-and-paid-for system, and that instead of simply resigning themselves to a posture of cynical defeatism, these truths should serve as the basic starting point for a clear-eyed revolutionary politics, a politics that understands that defeat is not an option and that the only way to win is by walking the revolutionary road.

As to specific tactics, I like the idea that someone (TNL? Radical Eyes?) came up with a few months back of running open socialists in Democratic primaries.

I also think we need more monetary resources to get our message about the bankruptcy of this system to a larger audience. And I have an idea about that but I'm not sure whether or not I should communicate it here. (Completely legal, but it involves diving into shark-infested waters.)

Red Fly asks:

<blockquote>"In your work, do you make clear to the folks who belong to your group and the to the people you try to get to vote for progressive Dems that this system is an utter sham?"</blockquote>

We work on two levels, uniting the advanced and uniting the progressive majority. That why we work with two types of organization, socialist and mass democratic. In the former, we make it clear that even if we can win reforms, they can't last or are not enough, ie, capitalism has to be replaced with socialism. In the latter, we make it clear that our demands match what people need in an immediate sense, and they have to fight to have any chance of getting them. If they don't fight, then they are simply the objects of history rather than its makers. In short, people best learn, not from what we 'make clear to them', although we do try to be very clear, but through summing up their own experience in struggle as well.


<blockquote>"Do you make it clear to your members that the main reason why they’re spending so much time on electing Democrats is because you’re seeking to expose them and the system they are a part of?" </blockquote>

First, we only spend time directly working to elect certain Democrats--those that support our progressive platform, candidates who are trade union members, minority community leaders and such. We oppose others, like Blue Dogs. And yes, we do it in a way that exposes the system as guided by neoliberalism very precisely and concretely. Read our piece on our Congressman, Jason Altmire, for an example.


<blockquote>"Do you make it clear to your members and to the folks you talk to that there’s zero possibility of achieving single payer healthcare, no matter how many self-styled progressives you help elect, within the foreseeable future?"</blockquote>

No, because while it's unlikely in the near future, it's not the case that there is 'zero possibility.' One town in Montana already has Medicare for All, and Vermont now has a state system that comes close enough. One thing is certain. Unless there is a majority in Congress willing to vote 'yes' on the matter, it won't happen. At the moment, there's about 80 votes in the Progressive Caucus, so there's a long way to go.

<blockquote>"Do you make it clear to the people that the system is bought-and-paid-for at every single level?"</blockquote>

Yes, but its often done differently at different levels. We try to be very concrete and specific, showing exactly what money goes to which politician, and exactly where it comes from. Right now we're showing how the Marcellus Shale drillers are buying off township commissioners and state reps.


<blockquote>"Do you actively seek to discredit the Democratic Party when you’re advocating for people to vote for them?"</blockquote>

We build our own organization, PDA, which is an independent PAC with no official ties to the Dems, save for backing the Progressive Caucus. Local elected officials and DEM voters are invited to join us on the basis of our platform, and a good number do. We put out analytical articles showing exactly which financial interests control various top factions of both parties. We do sometimes name one or another candidate as a lesser evil when we think there's a reasonable basis for doing so. The main thing is to grown our own size and strength in this work, which we have done.

One point you should note. It's also an illusion, I would argue, to think that you can get to socialism by boycotting the electoral arena or doing some kind of end run around it. You don't get socialism by elections, but you certainly proceed THROUGH them in this country, as well as through other forms as well. The degree of emphasis is not so much a matter of our choice, but what the progressive majority is willing to do, A militant minority can take up more advanced forms in both a war of movement and a war of position, but it does best to like these with what a majority is willing to do as well.

RW Harvey writes:

<blockquote>Perhaps this should be modified to read “crisis with revolutionary possibility.”</blockquote>

You're absolutely right. Thank you for the correction.

Revolution will not happen immediately even if the Dollar collapses. But I do think it could open some truly radical possibilities, as well as truly reactionary ones (hence my concern about the overwhelming support and trust for the military and the majority trust in the police -- think Kornilov, but also think Franco and Pinochet and dozens of other cases around the world in which the left failed to prevent right-wing military leaders from taking power in a time of crisis.)

Discontent and the loss of faith in the institutions means something qualitatively different under the context of existing bourgeois democracy and the ruling class intact. It is a fool’s errand to reckon discontent as a shift towards revolutionary consciousness.

Again, I completely agree. But the discrediting of bourgeois institutions is a necessary step along the path toward realizing revolutionary mass consciousness. Necessary but clearly not sufficient.

But Gramsci's key point is not simply to undermine the hegemony of the existing order. You have to develop a counter-hegemonic bloc and/or historic alliance that can replace it, creating a new order. The 'Modern Prince,' ie, the party and its well-deployed organic worker-intellectuals with a fighting capacity, are indispensable. Just to tear down one side and do little on the other can serve reaction, leaving the masses to the less-than-tender mercies of the iron fist that emerges when faced only with the spontaneous movement.

given his prominence in Progressives for Obama, for which see all the archived delusional bluster all over the web, carl davidson's assertions that:

"First, we only spend time directly working to elect certain Democrats–those that support our progressive platform, candidates who are trade union members, minority community leaders and such. We oppose others, like Blue Dogs. And yes, we do it in a way that exposes the system as guided by neoliberalism very precisely and concretely.... We build our own organization, PDA, which is an independent PAC with no official ties to the Dems, save for backing the Progressive Caucus...'

...are absurd, regardless of how relentlessly the assertions are made.

JP, 'Progressives for Obama' is two websites and an email list with maybe 1000 electronic supporters. It's been renamed Progressive America Rising, and is a rather minor part of my work. I run it for Hayden, Fletcher, Ehrenreich and Glover, whose politics it reflects. It takes only a few minutes a day of my time.

The far more important substance of my work, on two levels, is around building our 4th CD Progressive Democrats of America here in Western PA, the results of which are regularly reported on http://beavercountyblue.org, the group's blog. As for socialist tasks directly, it's CCDS and its socialist Education Project.

You don't have to agree with any of it--I doubt that you will. But at least aim your fire at the main target, if you want to have a decent discussion.

"American progressives have won a major victory in helping to defeat John McCain and placing Barack Obama in the White House..." said carl davidson back when: http://www.zcommunications.org/the-bumpy-road-ahead-new-tasks-of-the-left-following-obamas-victory-by-carl-davidson

your attempt now to minimize your efforts is head-shaking, and warrants multiple readings to take full effect: "JP, ‘Progressives for Obama’ is two websites and an email list with maybe 1000 electronic supporters... It’s a rather minor part of my work. I run it for Hayden, Fletcher, Ehrenreich and Glover, whose politics it reflects. It takes only a few minutes a day of my time..." says carl davidson.

are you also minimizing your efforts on all the other websites you frequent? or just hoping it doesn't come up? is that what a 'decent discussion' means ?

I still think it a good thing that McCain/Palin are not the chairs of the executive committee of our ruling class. And I'm hardly in a minority, even on the left and certainly not among the masses. I voted for Obama, and encouraged others to do so. Does that mean I'm an endorser or supporter of everything he's done or not done? Hardly.

The more interesting and tougher question is what to do in this round. I'm still working on it, which is what I find useful discussing here and elsewhere. Those of you who simply what to reject dealing with this altogether may have it easier on this matter. But you have an even tougher question, if you want to fact up to it, which is how do you get to socialism by avoiding the electoral arena. The anarcho-syndicalist deviation hasn't done to well over the years, either, and has illusions of its own.

I'm not one to overblow my efforts--or at least i try not to. Our work here in Beaver county is modest but positive and instructive. As much as I'm a geek who was a denizen of the net long before there was even a web, when it was all text and 1200 baud modems, I still believe all these tools are simply adjuncts. The core work of organizing is still face-to-face--in the workplace, in churches, community centers, union halls, and people's homes and hangouts.

That's where we build the organizations and the strength that matters most. That's were we try to apply the lessons of Gramsci and other revolutionaries. And getting into that concretely, comparing and contrasting different approaches, and examining the outcomes in practice, is what I have in mind as a fruitful thread of discussion on this topic.

<blockquote>Gramsci’s key point is not simply to undermine the hegemony of the existing order. You have to develop a counter-hegemonic bloc and/or historic alliance that can replace it, creating a new order. </blockquote>

Is it really possible to develop a counter-hegemonic bloc by working through the Democratic Party?! Wouldn't a real counter-hegemonic bloc have a better chance of developing if we set up our own alternative institutions? To do that we need money, don't we? But we communists are, generally speaking, some broke ass motherfuckers. That's a real obstacle. I think it's time to step up our game in this respect.

At risk of being accused of economism, what if we could come up with the funds to stuff like the Black Panthers' breakfast program on a much larger scale? Sure, that alone is not going to get people to embrace revolution, but it might give communists a big reputation boost and people might actually start opening their ears to our message.

I have an idea for this but I'm not really sure who to communicate it to. Presumably someone here, though perhaps in a different venue?

I'm also not sure if I'd be ridiculed or accused of communist apostasy or what.

It's important to break this down as to how it actually works. We are not so much 'working through the Democratic Party' as we are 'working among working-class and minority community voters, two-thirds of whom self-identify as Democrats. We recruit them to be members of PDA, and independent PAC with no official relation to the Dems. We hold our own meetings, and some local incumbents who agree with us on key issues, such as the war or HR 676, will come to our meetings. We occasionally organize delegations to have oppositional meetings with our Blue Dog Congressman to give him an earful; likewise with a few lesser incumbents we try to influence by getting them to break with the national policies of the DLC and GOP. When it comes time to canvas voters or get out the vote, we work through the trade union committees, rather than the Dem incumbents or the official Dem bodies, if they have any. Since 2008, most of our public events are larger than those of the regulars, if they even have any.

So our main point of contact with the regular top Dem in the area, our Congressman, is to organize monthly rallies vigils outside his office. Together with the Steelworkers, we occupied in once, until the cops turned us out.

As PDA's strength grows, at some point a crisis will emerge due to its opposition to the platform of the top leadership. They may move to denounce or expel us or split us--we'll make plans for crossing that bridge as we get closer. We have about 200 members who turn out regularly, and another circle of 200 more beyond that.

Suffice it to say, that PDA as a relatively large group of about 75,000 members nationwide, located in about half of the CDs, there are a variety of views in PDA, not all of which would agree with our chapter, not to mention me. But it works fairly well as a left-progressive pole influencing and helping the Congressional Progressive Caucus, pushing 'Out Now!' on the wars, the People's Budget, Medicare for All and other issues. The main thing is that it's platform is one that a progressive majority of working-class and minority voters can see as their own.

Norm Solomon, the antiwar film maker and journalist, is one of PDA's own that will be running for Congress in the Bay Area, and has a decent chance to win. We'll encourage nationwide support for him, as well as Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich.

Here in our area we have launched a new Marcellus Shale Organizing Committee that is quite lively, as well as a class for some of our most active workers on the US Constitution, which they asked for so as to be better prepared to argue with rightwing Tea Party supporters among their neighbors and fellow workers. I teach the class, and you can view the powerpoints for it, which are posted on our CCDS group page on FaceBook. It's content serves to raise and deepen class consciousness, among other things.

As for your point about the BPP and the Breakfast programs, I'm also with the Solidarity Economy Network and supportive of the efforts of the USW and others to build worker-owned coops as part of a green jobs effort. The Evergreen Coops in Cleveland are a small but successful case in point. Yu can read my new book on the topic, 'New Paths to Socialism,' if you like, available at http://stores.lulu.com/changemaker

<blockquote>As for your point about the BPP and the Breakfast programs, I’m also with the Solidarity Economy Network and supportive of the efforts of the USW and others to build worker-owned coops as part of a green jobs effort. The Evergreen Coops in Cleveland are a small but successful case in point. Yu can read my new book on the topic, ‘New Paths to Socialism,’ if you like, available at http://stores.lulu.com/changemaker</blockquote>

Heh. When I click on your book it says I may also like Friedrich Hayek's <em>The Fatal Conceit</em>. WTF?!

I like the idea of the Solidarity Economy Network, but one thing that seems to be lacking is a really distinct identity. That's one of the things that was so awesome about the Panthers' program -- it was linked to a distinct REVOLUTIONARY identity. That's the kind of thing that I'm proposing. Something that says, "Yes, we're revolutionaries and we're here to serve to the people in a real capacity." I don't think we'll be as effective if we just say, "Here's a network of co-ops and small businesses. We're about making a better world. And we even have some socialists."

No. It should be, "We're revolutionaries, serving the people is what we do, these our our programs and these ideas are the basis for what we do."

This also goes to the question, to go back to one of the best discussions on Kasama, about how communists should appear. The Black Panthers knew how to fucking appear! They appeared as kick ass, militant communists organized for the purposes of protecting and serving, not the bourgeois state and institutions, but the victims of the bourgeois state and its institutions. I don't know if we should be putting on the black leather or military fatigues or what, but I do feel that the image of militancy is a very important one to present to the people.

We need to create a solidarity economy network with a really distinct revolutionary identity!

@Red Fly

The Solidarity Economy Movement has been around for decades in the third world, and has the diverse character that it has--from factory occupations in Argentina to peasant coops in Mexico to day care centers in Quebec. It is what it is, a mixed bag of political views. In the US, it mainly draws anarchist-minded youth, both reformist and revolutionary..

The BPP was a product of its time, and you have to measure the downside of its politics as well as its upside. The New BPP grouping today tries to reproduce some of the militant style and appearance, but it's not doing to well.

You have to cast down your buckets where you are, not where you'd like to be, and build in the direction you think best from there.

But in Gramscian terms, keep in mind we're waging a 'war of position' with these projects, not an over-the-top 'war of movement.' The two are connected, but not the same, and require different approaches for good reasons.

Again, there's politics as self-expression and politics as strategy, and there's an art to knowing how to combine them.

I'm not saying we should just adopt the style of the Panthers. You're right. They were a product of their time. But damnit, I don't see why we have to settle for some conventional appearance either.

I mean, what's the point of that? Does it come down to not trying to scare little old ladies? Or is it your judgment that any kind of militant appearance will turn off the people we want to win over? And how do we know if we don't even try? You mention the New Black Panthers and how they're not doing too well. Well maybe that's partly because they're trapped in an <em>old</em> appearance. Maybe we should try to find a new militant appearance.

But the main point here is that the Panthers were able to forge a profoundly revolutionary image and fuse that with a communist ethic of serving the people. I think you have to make that material link, so that people mentally connect militant style and appearance with something incredibly positive in their lives. The image does no good if it's just an image without a deep connection because then you all get is a kind of free-floating signifier that can be easily attached by the bourgeoisie to their profoundly distorted view of the history of communist militancy.

How can we possibly win people over to militant politics if we can't make that positive connection in people's minds to the image of militancy? Can we really gain ground in a war of position simply by maintaining a nice, tidy bourgeois image?

&gt; When I click on your book it says I may also like Friedrich Hayek’s The Fatal Conceit. WTF?!

Lulu is a self-publishing outfit, not a group which claims to be socialist. They will automatically refer the viewer to any items on their list which carry a common word like "socialist" in the product description.

Perhaps we should try not to scare "little old ladies". Maybe we should be militant in our respect for women, even older women . That would definitley set us apart.

If you go to any union rally or organizers meetings, or the bars and clubs they hang out in, you'll find what today's young militant workers look and dress like, men and women--ball caps, union t-shirts and jackets, blue jeans, leather jackets when its cold. What's wrong with that? If you're African-American, you might try droopy drawers too, but that looks a little silly outside the neighborhood. If you're an anarchist student, you could try all black and a few piercings and a bandana for a mask. There were about 1000 of those at the G20 in Pittsburgh, and I had the task of explaining to a few older steelworkers what they were about.

But what do I know? I'm nearly 70 now, and have stuck with the same casual late 1950s beat generation style for 50 years, save for one foray in Brooklyn disco in the 1970s!

The main thing, I think, is to feel connected to those you're trying to organize. And if that means putting of a jacket and tie for occasions like weddings and funerals masses, that's what you do, to show a little respect. It's not all self-expression. And even when it is self-expression, I think these things best emerge naturally.

[BTW, lulu is print-on-demand publishing, one notch above self-publishing. They get your stuff onto Amazon.com and a few other networks. I set up Changemaker Publications using their service, and we now have about seven or eight titles, and growing slowly but nicely. If you have a book in you, consider it. But you have to do most of the marketing yourself.]

<blockquote>"Perhaps we should try not to scare “little old ladies”. Maybe we should be militant in our respect for women, even older women . That would definitley set us apart."</blockquote>

I'm not trying to disrespect older women. I was just trying to make a simple point that our style shouldn't be dictated by what everyone immediately finds to be "non-threatening."

But I think you already knew that.

I did know. But then it is a dismissive argument as well, and my point is that we should work on our ability to be more inclusive before we worry about "appearing" militant.

I don't think having a militant appearance is necessarily exclusionary.

And no, I'm not just talking about "appearing" militant, as if that were our primary task. What I'm talking about is fusing a communist ethic of serving the people with a specific militant identity.

Maybe you think that's nonsense. Which is fine. But it hardly precludes "working on our ability to be more inclusive."

Ultimately, the folks who are turned off by a militant appearance probably aren't very interested in communism anyway. And the folks who we really want to attract, oppressed youth, workers, and people of color, might be attracted to a militant appearance if it's combined with an ethic of serving the people. Again, it's about creating a material link between militancy and something positive in people's lives, not just going around playing dress up.

note to moderator: if 'allowing those trains of thought quickly degrade our overall discussion to flame-fests' then your prohibition rightly belongs to the initial questions posed to carl davidson by redfly, and to carl davidson's subsequent answers. if the mendacity of the responses are not to be challenged, then the questions that sparked the responses need to be disallowed.

regarding the content of this thread, i yield the floor to those more 'sane' - by their fruits ye shall know them.

Greetings Red Fly,

I’m very much in agreement with you about the need for a revolutionary movement with a strong “serve the people” mentality, but there are big problems with that while we still live under the capitalist class dictatorship. You will inherit the capitalism-caused problems of the masses. You’ll put your work and effort into helping people and to varying degrees be simply subsidizing American lifestyles with your work. Your work will end up buying drugs, in church collection plates, for fancy rims for cars, for jewelry, etc.. whereas your work could be going to help set up some sort of network that will help those who’re willing to step “out of bounds” in this culture and who’ve taken up a revolutionary viewpoint, to be able to be met with support, rather than isolation, for doing so.

I’ve not read any Gramsci, (nor largely any Marx, Lenin, or Mao except quotes in passing), but I believe that his ideas about social hegemony are along the lines of how I’ve formulated the following (from a paper I‘m working on):

“It’s important to understand how the capitalist class uses their elevated $tatus to bring people to embrace the rich White culture of selfishness, exploitation, and destruction. They are able to maintain overwhelming control of everything that people look to when determining what is “normal” in society. We are social animals who do not wish to step so far away from “normal” so as to be shunned by those surrounding us and/or to risk our ability to secure our survival. Here in the US, by overwhelmingly controlling TV stations, newspapers, textbooks, etc.. the capitalist class can’t get everyone to want to be “normal,” but by playing on our natural fears as social animals they drag society in ways to serve their interests. Of course there are people who cast aside that fear and we sometimes call these people revolutionaries, and the capitalist class calls them terrorists. “

So, what is needed is the kind of organization and leadership that can embolden people to take the leap away from “normal.” A lot of people cannot even make the choice to stray far from “normal” or they will seriously risk their ability to secure their survival, but with a revolutionary organization with proper vision you can open doors for those who’re willing to step away from “normal” to be enabled and encouraged to pursue further study regarding the nature of the capitalist system and what it will take to eliminate it, and to be able to carry out meaningful revolutionary work in a non-revolutionary situation without fear of losing the ability to secure their survival.

Of course once we’ve achieved state power, or perhaps even somehow some significant ownership of the means of production, things are different. But even now with the kind of organization and leadership I'm typing about you can create a situation where you can have people aggressively taking the revolutionary message out to people (a pill if you will, that often needs to be shoved in the mouths of people because of the current environment), but also have the side that does show the way to a new culture (someone providing water to wash the pill down with).