Paul: > Do you propose this inside-->outside approach for tactical or strategic > reasons? I.E. are you publicly giving the Democrats a "last chance" so as > to show good faith to ordinary working people (who have a long history with > the DP and may be the first to suffer, even more than now, during any > transitional dip when their numbers are divided)? Or do you actually > believe that, with the current dominance of US capital, there is some long > term chance (and benefit) to sharing the DP with the elements of business > that now control the party (or do you somehow see driving those elements out)?
I wish I had a soundbite as an answer. But I don't. Engaging the Democrats is a *strategic necessity*. The DP is more symptom than cause of the weakness and division of workers in the U.S. The political structures we face are the result of a heavy historical inertia. They have deep sociological and economic roots. This means that the DP is mainly the messenger and not the message. Getting rid of the DP is a task to be approached in a manner analogous to getting rid of, say, organized religion. While people need churches, there'll be churches, one way or another. While workers need the illusion of a "decent, liberal, democratic" America based on a "free-enterprise" or "mixed" economy, the conditions for the DP will remain -- and its corruption and political degeneration will be rationalized by the masses as errors attributable to individual leaders, and not as historically necessary phenomena arising from structural conditions. And people won't see the need to get rid of it. This phenomenon reaches beyond electoral processes and beyond the active membership of the DP. The more I observe life in this country, the more I realize this is the case. The kind of liberalism usually associated with the Democrats is the 'political religion' of a large number of workers. And those are the workers most likely to take immediate action for progressive change. Just as we don't condition class unity to workers not attending church services on Sundays, we shouldn't condition class unity to Dem workers abandoning their party. Of course, as is, the DP is not an adequate political vehicle for the U.S. workers to advance their class interest. *Except for the support and participation of a significant number of workers in their ranks (its voting base)*, the substantive political practice of the DP is not working-class. I've said that the DP is a party of the capitalists, for the capitalists, and by the capitalists. Obviously, as U.S. workers gain awareness of their own interest and build collective self-confidence and political clout, they'll have to confront (perhaps not once, but a number of times) the choice of either reforming the DP or abandoning it altogether to join another political formation or start a new one from scratch. In any event, that's not up to us to decide, or decide a priori. Precluding purges, when things come to a head, it'll be up to the workers in the party to decide. The alternative of supporting or joining a separate organization will appear as something forced upon those workers, just as one is forced to dump an old computer when it can't operate new software or when fixing it becomes too expensive. Nowhere has the working class emerged as an independent political force without a previous long period of political evolution within and through political formations dominated by the ruling class. For historical reasons, excluding sheer good luck, this process will take a very long time in the U.S. If we want to help working people become an independent political force at the least cost, we need to calibrate our moves at each juncture, not to our own beliefs and ideology, but to the actual behavior and attitudes of the mass of workers. Carroll is right: I'm just me. So, it's not up to me to give the DP a "last chance." It's up to the working people, collectively, by their actions and/or omissions. And I'm afraid they'll keep giving them (and other bourgeois politicians, e.g., Republicans) chances as far as they don't feel that the progressive alternative is better. I'm not recommending radicals to join the DP -- or to abandon it if they're members. IMO, the right criteria needs to be local. Because the long-run work has to be conducted, to a large extent, at the local and topical level. With that in mind, how can one be most effective? I guess, there are places where being a Green is a good idea... or an Independent, or a Working-Families activist. In other places, staying Democrat is best. At the national level, we can't avoid engaging the DP. The big fallacy of the hyper-righteous hyper-radical left is to imply that when one is logistically separated from the DP, one gets around it and becomes immune to its politics. No and no. Sticking our heads in the sand doesn't make the DP, and its social roots, disappear. I do see an opening for an independent campaign. But, to avoid painting itself in a tiny corner, it has to be *contingent upon what results from the DP primaries*, which in turn will depend on how the DP evolves meanwhile. Let's just keep in mind that, at this point, talk about 2008 is to a large extent speculative. Much can happen in between, particularly as a result of the 2006 midterm elections. And tactical and even strategic flexibility is necessary. > Do you really mean JUST the anti-war issue and no conditions on income > distribution, social support, etc? The anti-war issue alone should be the criterion to decide whether or not to support the DP candidate: If she/he takes a clear and prominent stance against the war and for the quick withdrawal of the troops, then the left should support her/him. Why not add other issues? Because, chances are, if a DP candidate decides to take a stance against the war, she/he'll also go for more on the domestic front. And two, because the more we condition our support, the less serious we are. And then our position is easier to dismiss. The opposition to the war is the most important mass movement in recent history in this country. It has the potential to unite broad sectors of the working class and to fracture the rulers into conflicting factions. And that's exactly what we need. Class rule tends to be more ferociously disputed -- from inside or from outside (the dichotomy is not always relevant) its established political formations -- in the heat of events that suddenly and gravely affect the expectations and livelihood of large masses of people. This is the case with the war on Iraq. But we need laser-like focus on these things if we're going to advance. If the DP selects a hawk as a candidate, then we're free to support an independent candidate or launch our own. In this scenario, we have a few more degrees of freedom. So we can add two or three more winning items to the agenda. Progressive reform of our foreign policy and universal health care are obvious. Universal health care can be justified on grounds of plain fairness and also as an economic necessity. Another winner, IMO, is *true* fiscal responsibility, which we translate as a big ax to wield against corporate welfare, tax giveaways for the rich, and military spending, and as a gradual return to sustainable budgets on the premise that social programs and *true* national security will be prioritized. Unless things change drastically in mid course, I don't think our candidate can go for much more. Failure to fulfill its main promises once in office would damage the movement more than anything else. So, even if it's a very long shot (and I don't think it is, if the left plays well its hand), we need an agenda that can be implemented once in office. And I'll leave it at that. > How do you take into account that you are dealing with feckless > politicians? IF your approach gathers some strength they are likely to > declare themselves anti-war...and pro-war. Or 2/3rds anti war. Or > 3/4s. Or just an anti-war party platform. Lyndon Johnson didn't run as > pro-war. Are you counting on a sincere and definitive answer? IMO, if the left moves quickly and takes organizational advantage of the current mood among broad segments of the U.S. population, we'll have ways to enforce our contracts, explicit or implicit, with the politicians. But, the key here is the political evolution of the class. The alternative is not some form of political paralysis and self-marginalization in the guise of radicalism, using as an excuse the fact that politicians are not as steady as we believe we -- or those beloved leaders with a more radical political pedigree -- are. A political tantrum a la Nader 2004 may make individuals feel good, but it does nothing to advance the political development of the class. If there are resources at hand to make a candidate deliver once in office, we use them. If those resources don't exist, then we need to build them -- but that takes time. Just building our local strength (however meager at first) around class issues and on a long-run organizational horizon turns us into a force to be reckoned with. But in any case, making it clear to everybody that we play our hand honestly and to the best of our ability is in and by itself helpful to the political evolution of our class. A priori, workers have *no* vaccine against future disenchantment, betrayal, bureaucratism, reformism, incompetent leaders, etc. Ideology, organizational orthodoxy, revolutionary pedigree, radical phraseology, profession of faith to revolutionary Marxism, etc. are all dime a dozen. All we have is the self-education and self-organization of the class. Julio
