Steven, Thanks for raising these points and for the compliment. Both objections are important, and I actually think they strengthen the argument. I'll address them one at a time.
On recall, the main point is that there’s no legal recall for federal office, and if there were, the right would use it to target every elected socialist throughout their term. But the checklist never relied on a constitutional rule, and neither did the classic approach. Most parliamentary systems where the Comintern operated didn’t have legal recall either. Instead, recall was handled internally. The party could expel a deputy, pull its endorsement, withdraw support, and run someone else at the next chance. What mattered wasn’t the law, but the deputy’s dependence on the party—its press, resources, funding, and base. So for DSA, the real issue isn’t whether Congress allows recall but whether the representative still relies on the organization to secure reelection. The Avila Chevalier case already hints at this dynamic. If an organization can help someone win a seat, it can also take it away—unless the representative finds another group to back her. That’s how drift happens in the American system, and it happens fast, often within one term, because incumbents quickly build their own donor lists and staff and press contacts and get support from the Democratic caucus. Soon, the endorsement that got them elected becomes something they can afford to lose. In practice, recall means getting commitments from candidates when the organization has the most leverage—before the primary, not after they take office. This could mean wage agreements, staffing the office through the organization instead of hiring from the usual political pool, and having a real socialists-in-office group with authority over votes. NYC-DSA technically has these commitments, so its record is worth looking at honestly. There should also be a clear, public understanding that endorsements are conditional and can be revoked. None of this needs a change in the law. It just means the organization should keep its leverage rather than use it all to win. Your point about the right using legal recall actually supports this argument: the alternative has to be internal, because a state-level recall would be used against us. About Sweden and the New Deal, I don’t think the argument makes those achievements seem impossible. The point isn’t that reformism never delivers. Luxembourg actually starts by saying reforms are real, possible, and essential—they’re the daily training ground for the class. The prediction is more specific: first, what reformist officials achieve depends on the class’s own organized power, not just the officials’ intentions. Second, when it comes to challenging property, the leadership will defend the status quo. Both your examples show this dynamic, and Sweden’s case makes it especially clear. Swedish social democracy succeeded for decades because of strong external pressure: union density was nearly 90%, bargaining was centralized, and the labor movement was larger and older than the parliamentary party. SAP officials were kept in check by this external force, as the essay describes. In this case, it was LO, not a revolutionary group. You already pointed out the key test: the Meidner wage-earner funds were a classic transitional demand, meant to shift capital ownership gradually to workers [1]. What happened? The party leadership watered it down, delayed it, buried it in committees, and then led the neoliberal shift in the 1980s and 1990s [2]. LO pushed for change, but the leadership stopped it. This situation isn’t an exception to the framework—it’s precisely what the framework predicts. The New Deal aligns with this pattern when you consider the aspects of the congressional anti-monopoly narrative that Stoller often downplays: In 1934, three general or near-general strikes occurred in Toledo, Minneapolis, and San Francisco, each led by organized radicals. The New Deal follows the same pattern if you look at what’s often left out: in 1934, major strikes in Toledo, Minneapolis, and San Francisco were led by organized radicals, followed by the CIO’s rise. Laws like Wagner, Social Security, and the FLSA were won because the working class was active, and it was cheaper for capital to make concessions than to fight. Laissez-faire was out, and the coming war economy needed labor peace. When that pressure faded, the reforms also diminished, including Taft-Hartley in 1947, the long rollback, and PATCO. The officials didn’t change between 1935 and 1947; what changed was the balance of power. The available evidence supports the thesis rather than contradicts it. Our situation is different, and that’s the challenging part. DSA members take office without the things that made midcentury reformism possible. There’s no big union presence to apply outside pressure and no economic growth, making it easy for capital to yield ground. The pull of the institution on representatives is as strong as ever, but there’s less to offer in return. That’s why building our own organizational counter-form is even more important now than it was in Stockholm in 1955. The Swedes could rely on LO to help keep discipline. We don’t have that. We have to create our own counter-form, or the institution will shape us instead. Tony [1] Rudolf Meidner, Employee Investment Funds: An Approach to Collective Capital Formation (London: Allen and Unwin, 1978). [2] On the dilution and defeat of the funds, see Jonas Pontusson, The Limits of Social Democracy: Investment Politics in Sweden (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992); and Mark Blyth, Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), chap. 7. -- Tony -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#42267): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42267 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120071893/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
