Further thoughts along the lines of this thread are developed in the lead editorial of the most recent issue of Solidarity, entitled “Toward liberation or ruin?”
(See the July/August issue, #243, at Toward Liberation or Ruin? – Against the Current ( https://againstthecurrent.org/atc243/toward-liberation-or-ruin/ ) ) Added to the editorial are comments by Anthony P. Teso, who forcefully makes the point about paying attention to the electoral arena. He cites the recent victories by DSA candidates and concludes that there is a vibrant part of the Democratic Party. Leftists cannot afford to sit idly by while progressives and self-proclaimed socialists are upsetting old guard Democrats. Anthony agrees with the editorial’s call to organize independent mass movements against the Trump Republicans, but stresses (which the editorial ignores) the need to combine that with electoral work. Anthony identifies this work in the electoral arena as insisting upon discipline and accountability, holding accountable the left-leaning candidates who get elected. Yes, I would agree, but first they have to get elected. Being active in the electoral arena means working to get progressive candidates elected in the first place. Especially now, when we’re at a crossroads. If Democrats make a good showing in the coming midterms, that will put a spoke in Trump’s wheel. If, on the other hand, the Republicans maintain their trifecta, we’re in for a very rough time, both with Mideast wars and for harsh suppression at home. Trump has already begun his attempt to subvert the midterms by sending federal “election monitors” to roam around polling places to intimidate voters and discourage them from casting ballots. Today’s events in Dearborn illustrate the difference between the two bourgeois parties. A nazi white nationalist organized an anti-Muslim demonstration outside Dearborn city hall. Every Democratic Party official in the state, from governor and U.S. Senators on down, issued a statement condemning the provocation. Granted, they did not issue a militant call for mass demonstrations to smash the nazis; on the contrary, they advised people to stay home and stay peaceful. But they did take a public stand against the fascists and their politics of hate. And what about the Republicans? Not a peep from them. They don’t want to risk alienating their base, which is consumed by “erase the race” fear. The difference shows what we’re headed for after the November elections: either coddling Nazis or condemning them. The editorial insists that the Democratic Party is not and cannot be an alternative to corporate capitalism. True, but politically it does represent a different set of corporate capitalists who have a different method of ruling. And at election time, after the primaries, the Democratic Party IS the alternative to the Republicans. John Reimann, among others, has drawn the correct conclusion that leftists should hope for a Democratic victory. Not only that, they need to work in the electoral arena. If you want to hold electeds accountable, you have to enter that arena with force. The electeds must know, must recognize that their position is largely due to your efforts. The editorial and Anthony’s comments both discuss the need to make the connection between foreign and domestic issues, between the war on Iran and the war on the masses at home. Agreed, but this is sometimes done in a vulgar, economistic – even a chauvinist – way, with Democrats like Abdul el-Sayed promising that ending foreign wars means “money in your pocket” and free health care. Socialists should instead be promoting an internationalist perspective of support for the struggling masses abroad as well as workers here. My point is not to pick on el-Sayed’s sloganeering or to oppose his candidacy, but that simply calling for “making the connection” is not a magic bullet of enlightenment. Anthony and the Solidarity editors agree that a major point is “Trump is a symptom, not the underlying disease.” But overemphasizing this can make you miss today’s political point. Trump is a recognized political force, a focus for building opposition to the underlying reactionary trends. This should not be overlooked. When people go to vote, they should keep Trump and his cronies in mind, not just a vague unease about trends in society. The editorial’s authors wrote that “the role of unions in May Day Strong was a step forward, although not a dramatic breakthrough.” Actually, their role was pathetic, though it was a little bit more prominent than at previous No Kings demos. Solidarity is making excuses for the trade union officialdom. Instead of according them mild praise, Solidarity should be lambasting the trade union leaders for their lack of leadership on the important questions of the day. They do criticize UAW leader Fain for his backward position on tariffs. But they don’t mention the union officialdom otherwise. Both the editorial and Anthony conclude with the comforting statement that readers of Solidarity don’t need anyone lecturing them about socialism. Really? Is this the one thing all leftists agree on, everyone is clear about, and there are no questions or disputes? After reading all these disputes on Marxmail about fascism vs. bonapartism, united front vs. popular front, etc., etc., it looks to me like leftists don’t have any settled views on what shoe to put on first, much less what is socialism. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43078): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43078 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120623848/21656 -=-=- 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
