Comments * With no air beneath the wings, aircraft will not fly. The thermo air currents which lifted Santorum out of the Senate, boiled up from a PA senior movement focused on saving Social Security. Alone, that movement would still be fighting the same battle - Santorum would still represent PA. What changed in 2006, was a deeper unity among all forces, including many young peoples' organizations, to save Social Security.
I believe that the failure to defend ACORN exposed influences of racism in the coalition that produced electorial victory in 2008. In PA, for instance, ACORN was responsible for registering and turning out nearly a million voters in 2008. That did not happen in 2010. The destruction of ACORN in PA has had a devastating affect on mobilizing workers hardest hit by the 'recession', aggrevated distrust and created a sense of isolation. Many religious based organizations are trying to fill the gap, but there is still a gap. Posted by denise winebrenner edwards, 01/03/2011 1:33pm (20 hours ago) * Sam, Ted Pearson didn't write that tens of millions were ready to fight. He said they opposed the tax cuts for the rich. If you take into account the polls showing those who were against any tax cuts and those who opposed tax cuts for the rich, then we have 2/3 for the country against the tax cuts. That is certainly in the tens of millions. Posted by José A. Cruz, 01/02/2011 11:21pm (1 day ago) * Sam: Nowhere in your commentary do we see the words "payroll tax" or "Social Security." I find it hard to take that we all get lectured from your quarter about the "balance of class and social forces," when the balance of forces is going to be a whole lot worse next time (with a Republican majority in the House) and the enemy gets to label any attempt to better fund Social Security as a "tax increase." And what will happen in a couple of years when we have a chance again to let the tax cuts for the rich expire? What's to prevent the Republicans from pulling the same trick? I am not interested in debating what is in the president's heart of hearts. At some level, you are correct that more depends on the left and on mass mobilization. But that begs the question: How should communists act to CREATE that mass mobilization? Or more accurately in this case, how do communists REACT when that mass mobilization HAPPENS, almost entirely without communist instigation? Well, creating that mass mobilization was exactly what MoveOn and Bernie Sanders and many others were trying to do. These people are not idiotic Trotskyite left-adventurists. (I agree that Obama-bashing Trots and the like are not worth debating anyway, but they didn't have anything to do with this mass mobilization, either.) Here, we are talking about serious mass activists who were trying to do something to push the boundaries, and to create the conditions for a better settlement. The "balance of class and social forces" is not static from moment to moment. A lot depends on how we ACT. Action from below can change that balance of forces. There were people at the base who were trying to do this. They deserved your support in this effort, not your defeatist derision. Posted by Felix Dzerzhinsky, 01/02/2011 4:48pm (2 days ago) * The imperative responsibility of the Left in this country is to defend democracy and the gains made by the people in over two centuries of struggle. Right now, in 2011, the United States is in danger of being taken over by the darkest and most sinister Right-wing forces, as we have seen in the Tea Party movement. In order to prevent that, the Left must defend the political Center and strengthen its leftist leanings. I suggested during the election campaign that the Left adopt the slogan "Unite and Fight to defeat the Right.!" The Obama administration is the political center. When Communists defend president Obama, it is not out of ideological solidarity, but to support its progressive actions and to influence those forces that want greater positive change. We need to help those people in the most need in the most effective way available at this time. Sam Webb is correct in his assessment of the balance of the class forces today. When many on the Left opposed the tax compromise, I wonder, why was there not an outpouring of anger that led to massive street and organized protests against it? Why have Greek, French, and Irish people taken to the streets and US workers did not? That is part of what Webb is talking about. Posted by David G., 01/01/2011 2:51pm (3 days ago) * Some inciteful analysis, but what is the role of progressives in this current dilemma? We cannot reduce ourselves to a cheering squad for the Obama administration. It is not enough to recognize the current balance of class forces. Such a stance would mean surrender. There is a real need to educate, agitate and organize. To criticize Obama from the left without weakening the alliances that put him in power is a legitimate goal. We must continue searching for the tactics that will achieve this. May the new year bring greater education, agitation and organization. Peace! Posted by Elliot, 01/01/2011 10:39am (3 days ago) * "What was the president’s alternative given the balance of class and social forces in the capital and across the country . . . " Web speaks of the balance of forces as if they are static. But that balance is very much dependent upon the struggle being waged by the working class, a struggle which the Communist Party should be taking a lead in organizing. Yes, the Party should be using this as a teachable moment. The lesson should be the need to struggle against more concessions to the ruling class and for real pro-worker reforms. We should be explaining how both the Republicans and the Democrats are controlled by the ruling class and are actively working to put the burden of the crisis on our backs. We should be teaching that even the best of reforms are only partial measures and that what we ultimately need is to fight for socialism. Posted by Andre, 01/01/2011 1:19am (3 days ago) * The ideological debate over the tax compromise needs to come down to earth a bit. The Left, depending on how one defines that term, has termed it a "surrender", "caving too soon to the right", "failing the (Abraham) Lincoln -- i.e. devotion to principle -- test". The working class -- by substantial majorities -- supports it, although its probably a mistake to read too much into the likely diverse motivations revealed by many pollsters ambiguous, or double-edged questions. the debate has been hot. Although no one that I have read has made a convincing argument that a better result would have ensued by stonewalling the "hostage-taking" tactics of the Republicans until their majority in the House took hold. Sen Sherrod Brown of Ohio perhaps made the best objection (and also Bernie Sanders, of course) by advocating taking the showdown over tax cuts for the rich up to the last possible minute and then have the democrats do their own stonewalling over unemployment. But that argument rests on a tactical unity among Democrats that don't exist, and also upon an assumption that Republicans give a hoot whether ANY legislation EVER gets passed. The most important question is now: how do we prepare the strongest possible foundation for anti-austerity and anti-war politics moving forward? And lets be concrete. The Left is still too marginalized in the US, IMHO, to resolve unity AMONG OURSELVES by emphasizing IDEOLOGICAL debate. We need proposals that can mount a 100 campaigns across the country on "peace and prosperity vs war and austerity" (I love Carl Davidson's slogan) in the 2012 season. Lets get to it! The debate on the compromise reminds me of a trade union analogy: Imaging a collective bargaining agreement covering two bargaining units: the 'house' factory, and the 'senate' factory. An election de-authorizing the union majority in the 'house' unit has just been won by anti-union forces, but does not become certified for a couple of months. Is that the time to have a showdown at the top level? Call a multi-unit strike? I don't think so. Better to play defense at the top, while exerting all possible energies and action to regroup at the bottom first. Happy new year everyone -- may it be a turning point. jcase Posted by John Case, 12/31/2010 6:36pm (4 days ago) * About the buzzword of the day--Empire--which only the left understands: I think most Americans on some level are seeing that with the rise of India, China, Brazil, Europe, the American sun is setting. How we come to terms with this reality will be one of the leading characteristics of the next few years. The Left knows this, but elements of the Tea Party movement know it too...the nativist, isolationist types who are tired of what they call our attempts at "nation-building" halfway around the globe. Many in those sectors could be won over to the prospect of cutting back our military presence overseas and bringing our servicemembers home to work on bridges, parks, green energy. Posted by Eric, 12/31/2010 5:34pm (4 days ago) * one more thought: nearly 7 out of 10 supported this compromise which on the face of it anyway contradicts ted's claim that tens of millions were ready to fight. sam Posted by sam webb, 12/31/2010 5:30pm (4 days ago) * ted, what makes you think tens of millions were ready to go into battle; that's wishful thinking which doesn't build the movement; in the end it become demoralizing as you know from past experience, if tens of millions were ready to hit the street where were they election night; the heartland was nothing but red, sam Posted by sam webb, 12/31/2010 5:23pm (4 days ago) A parting thought assets/Uploads/_resampled/CroppedImage6060-sam.jpg by: Sam Webb December 31 2010 tags: taxes, politics, obama, congress, economy obama2 With the end of the year fast approaching, I decided to join the pundits and leave one parting thought. So here goes! The battle over taxes was a teachable moment. But left and progressive people missed the boat. An opportunity to teach millions about the realities of class power, politics, and tactics went by the board. Let me explain: The compromise met nearly universal opposition from progressive and left people. I don’t know if anyone called it a “sellout,” but they might as well have. One writer said in the aftermath of the legislative compromise that we won the battle in 2008 and lost the war in 2010. The question is: is this criticism warranted? In my view the answer is unequivocally – No. What was the president’s alternative given the balance of class and social forces in the capital and across the country at that time and later when the new Congress convenes in January? What was the policy option given the right-wing Republican comeback, the political confusion of the American people and the weaknesses of the left and broader movement that the election results revealed? To stand down Mitch McConnell and his gang as his critics suggested would have been feasible, but only if a legislative alternative was available and only if millions of ordinary people, many of whom just voted for Republicans in the midterm elections, could be rallied to compel congressional Republicans to support that alternative – and let’s not forget that all the while this is going on working people’s paychecks are shrinking and their unemployment benefits are evaporating. Finding an alternative legislative package, say one that sunset the Bush tax cuts and expanded spending for the jobs and the unemployed, would be easy enough to come by. But setting millions into motion in an organized fashion is a different kettle of fish. A snap of the fingers won’t do it. Nor will a good slogan. Not even a presidential address. Indeed, it would depend in the end on the political and organizational capacity of the leaders of the main social organizations (labor in the first place), liberals, progressives, left thinking people, and so forth to activate millions – including again many who turned the election map red on election night this past November. I’m not suggesting that we enter only those battles that we are sure that we can win, but we should have some confidence that in the battles in which we engage, we can make a respectable fight of it and stand some chance of winning – provided, of course, that we exploit every division among our opponents, look for allies – reliable and unreliable – and fill the streets and the corridors of Congress with an army of outraged people. We don’t need moral victories at this moment, but real ones. And that is particularly the case for the unemployed who in this instance would have lost their benefits. While we don’t set moral claims aside, it is imperative to take into account the balance of class and social forces at any given moment, our capacity to bring into motion masses of people, and our best guess of what can be realistically won. Critics of the president say that the tax/unemployment extension compromise was demoralizing and unnecessary, but I would argue that walking into the jaws of a hungry lion with barely a weapon in hand can be far more demoralizing, even near deadly, which is what I think would have been the political residue in this instance if no compromise had been reached. Obviously, I have a different estimate of our fighting capacity and public opinion (that by the way overwhelmingly supported the compromise) than the president’s critics. If the last two years have revealed anything to me, it is this – our ability to influence and bring into the streets millions in any sort of sustained way is limited and the political consciousness of the American people (as a whole) is contradictory and confused. I wish that were not the case, but I’m afraid this is the reality. Some blame the president for this situation, others the Democrats, but this is too easy an answer. The president should take some responsibility, as should his party, for the present political mess to be sure, but shouldn’t we as well? Doesn’t it say something about our politics (which lean in the direction of narrowness), mass connections (not enough to the main mass social organizations), organizing skill set (not enough emphasis on broad unity), and ability to shape mass thinking (speak too much to ourselves and in a language that only we understand – the new buzzword is “Empire.”) Over the past two years, don’t we have to admit that the tea party has better communicated its message to millions, united its supporters, and expanded its bases of power than our side has? For too long we have assumed that the American people are ready to wholeheartedly embrace left solutions. If we, and especially Democrats, project them, "the people will come." Tell that to Russ Feingold! This is wishful thinking. Notwithstanding the awful mess we are in, I don't see the system breaking down or people spontaneously rising up. In my view, the path to a progressive, and socialist, future will take long persistent work, flexible and broad tactics, and a sound strategic policy. Supposedly, a deep and protracted economic crisis is the triggering mechanism for a lurch to the left, but in the current situation it is being resolved to the advantage of capital. This contrasts with the 1930s. During that decade, a broad upheaval and openings from above, thanks to President Roosevelt and congressional New Dealers, resulted in the New Deal. The current ruling class and especially its most reactionary sectors (politically represented by right-wing extremism that now controls the Republican Party) prefer a “raw deal” for the American people. Their aim is not only to multiply their wealth at the expense of working people, minorities, women, youth, seniors, and other social groupings, but also to crush any organized opposition. It's amazing, isn’t it, how little reform transnational and finance capital will tolerate! In this latest battle over tax cuts, right-wing Republicans acting on their behalf drove a tough bargain – a hostage deal, the president correctly called it – on behalf of their clients who operate globally. And earlier this year it only took some very modest financial and health care reforms for the corporate elite, and finance capital in particular, to go apoplectic and beat up on the administration. Which brings me back to the overriding necessity to significantly enlarge the political and organizing capacity of the working class and people’s movement. It’s the linchpin of progressive change at this moment. Moreover, the starting point – not the ending point – for such an effort is not some long-range vision or a full blooded left, or even progressive, program of action. They have a place for sure. Ground zero, however, is the immediate struggles for relief that are stirring millions and the overarching task of decisively defeating right- wing Republicanism in 2012 – something we didn’t do four years earlier. White House photo Post your comment Comments are moderated. See guidelines here. Comments _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
