Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Alan Ginsberg via Marxism]

  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.
*

Michael Meeropol wrote:
"The women's march in 2017 was accompanied by scores (hundreds?) of local
actions ..."

Certainly more than scores; perhaps more than hundreds -- from Alaska to
Antarctica

photos at
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/21/world/womens-march-pictures.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

and here's Antarctica
https://people.com/politics/womens-march-protest-antarctica-donald-trump/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Michael Meeropol via Marxism]

  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.
*

The women's march in 2017 was accompanied by scores (hundreds?) of local
actions --- we participated in one in Poughkeepsie, NY with thousands of
participants (2-4 thousand by my recollection) -- there were major marches
in all majo uran areas ---

There is no conflict between the women's march in DC and NY and making room
for local folks with neither the time nor money to travel 

JOHN:

Is it to lobby the Congress or effect president Trump?
Or to sell subscriptions to some publication or books?
Or to help sales at museum gift shops?I

ME:   To put pressure on Congress and remind ourselves that we ARE in the
majority against TRUMP -- A mighty coalition similar to the one that helped
stop the US imperial war in Vietnam  and forced a reluctant Democratic
Party (Kennedy in particular) to support the second Reconstruction ...

>
>
> members and friends who can and need to be involved and change the often
> narrow
> U. S. left, to actually reflect the U. S. working class.  Local actions in
> Los Angeles where
> I reside, have been larger in numbers than those held in Wasgington DC,
> the past few
> years.   And it is not just getting someone to participate in a protest
> but to continue
> their involvement in groups and becoming more aware of the system and our
> history
> of working people, who challenged and changed things.It was not the
> politicians.
>
>
> 
>
>
> A centralized demonstration in Washington DC would be positive, but I think
> that localized protests are more important at this stage. There are all
> sorts of local movements, some of which actually involve layers of working
> class people. For instance, I know in Colorado that there is an
> anti-fracking movement of this nature. Here in Oakland, although working
> class people, including youth, are largely uninvolved in most protests,
> still some are. More importantly, having local protests - all on the same
> day - would make it easier and more natural to actually get out into the
> working class communities, the working class schools (including community
> colleges) and actually to the work places to start to at least start a
> dialog with our class. It might not pay off immediately, but it's the
> ground work that is absolutely, vitally necessary and - let's admit it - is
> simply not being done on any serious scale.
>
> Then there's another issue: I think socialists should call for the protests
> to be held during regular work hours and to involve civil disruption. In
> other words, to call for workers to walk off their jobs. That then
> indirectly starts to raise the issue of a political strike. This, in turn,
> will run us head long up against the union leadership... which is purely a
> good thing.
>
> I make this last point having had some experience with this. Back around
> 2009 or so, there was a call for a one-day protest around education issues
> here in Oakland. Thousands of students walked out of their schools. In the
> coalition organizing for this, a debate arose whether to hold the main
> protest during the day or after work hours. All those who didn't want a
> conflict with the union leadership supported the second option. At the end
> of the day, we won out and held it during the day and into the afternoon.
> But I think it was vitally important to have that debate and to get the
> majority in favor of calling it during work hours. It was equally important
> to have Oakland's working class  youth (overwhelmingly youth of color) at
> the center of the event.
>
> John Reimann
> --
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/mameerop%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[John Obrien via Marxism]

  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.
*

It is very revealing about when people in New York City with financial resources
are suggesting that most people across the U. S. with little funds and with 
much more
difficulty to travel outside their region - should hold a national protest in 
Washington DC.

Is it to lobby the Congress or effect president Trump?
Or to sell subscriptions to some publication or books?
Or to help sales at museum gift shops?

If you really want average working people to participate, and continue after 
the event,
then it should be locally held across the U. S. instead.   Some people have 
children
and other family members to take care of, that do not allow them to travel great
distances, should they even have funds to do so, and many do not.

It is important to organize and involve people locally - to build a left in the 
hundreds
of communities where there is a too small organied left.  And it is important 
to build a
movement of working people who are not with funds to take airplanes and stay in
hotels, eat out, etc  What kind of left does one envision, if events are only 
for the
better off financially?

The democratic party operatives focus is to lobbying and identifying with those 
in
government and not with identifying and organizing working people for their own
interests.  If the goal is to build a unified left - not tailing after 
bourgeois liberal
politicians (whose goals are to end independent movements and serve the rulers),
then start to do that by ones actions - and that includes organizing and 
welcoming
poor working people.

Among the radicalizing millemials, are those with limited funds and who have 
family
members and friends who can and need to be involved and change the often narrow
U. S. left, to actually reflect the U. S. working class.  Local actions in Los 
Angeles where
I reside, have been larger in numbers than those held in Wasgington DC, the 
past few
years.   And it is not just getting someone to participate in a protest but to 
continue
their involvement in groups and becoming more aware of the system and our 
history
of working people, who challenged and changed things.It was not the 
politicians.





A centralized demonstration in Washington DC would be positive, but I think
that localized protests are more important at this stage. There are all
sorts of local movements, some of which actually involve layers of working
class people. For instance, I know in Colorado that there is an
anti-fracking movement of this nature. Here in Oakland, although working
class people, including youth, are largely uninvolved in most protests,
still some are. More importantly, having local protests - all on the same
day - would make it easier and more natural to actually get out into the
working class communities, the working class schools (including community
colleges) and actually to the work places to start to at least start a
dialog with our class. It might not pay off immediately, but it's the
ground work that is absolutely, vitally necessary and - let's admit it - is
simply not being done on any serious scale.

Then there's another issue: I think socialists should call for the protests
to be held during regular work hours and to involve civil disruption. In
other words, to call for workers to walk off their jobs. That then
indirectly starts to raise the issue of a political strike. This, in turn,
will run us head long up against the union leadership... which is purely a
good thing.

I make this last point having had some experience with this. Back around
2009 or so, there was a call for a one-day protest around education issues
here in Oakland. Thousands of students walked out of their schools. In the
coalition organizing for this, a debate arose whether to hold the main
protest during the day or after work hours. All those who didn't want a
conflict with the union leadership supported the second option. At the end
of the day, we won out and held it during the day and into the afternoon.
But I think it was vitally important to have that debate and to get the
majority in favor of calling it during work hours. It was equally important
to have Oakland's working class  youth (overwhelmingly youth of color) at
the center of the event.

John Reimann
--

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Mark Lause via Marxism]

  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.
*

Democrats aren't opposed to protests, but on their own terms.  Not
overwhelming in numbers (because that makes them more difficult to
manage).  Something like the Kavenaugh protests were ideal.  Noisy mass
lobbying.  Something to get the TV cameras swinging away from the latest
Trump tweet to refocus on the designated Democratic spokesperson.

And they don't want them repeated.  No sooner than Occupy bubbled up, the
Democrats sent AFL-CIO officials and others with very sharp pins to
puncture them.  That they appeared made the point the Democrats were happy
to see made, but they didn't want anything aimed at an ongoing mass
movement.

Let's recall the massive, wonderful potential of those women's marches that
greeted Trump's inauguration.  Nobody seemed to know who was behind them
beyond the usual Democratic front groups.  And they drowned that potential
no sooner than they revealed it.

Democrats didn't want a genuinely independent movement around civil rights
or against the Vietnam War and were trying to thwart it continually.

At this stage, what forces are there to build such a movement beyond the
very limited perspectives the Democrats would find permissible?  The
various socialist organizations?  Militant community organizations?
Churches?  We are up against a network of institutions and institutional
responses the Democrats have been repairing and extending since the 1970s.

Solidarity,
Mark L.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[John Reimann via Marxism]

  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.
*

A centralized demonstration in Washington DC would be positive, but I think
that localized protests are more important at this stage. There are all
sorts of local movements, some of which actually involve layers of working
class people. For instance, I know in Colorado that there is an
anti-fracking movement of this nature. Here in Oakland, although working
class people, including youth, are largely uninvolved in most protests,
still some are. More importantly, having local protests - all on the same
day - would make it easier and more natural to actually get out into the
working class communities, the working class schools (including community
colleges) and actually to the work places to start to at least start a
dialog with our class. It might not pay off immediately, but it's the
ground work that is absolutely, vitally necessary and - let's admit it - is
simply not being done on any serious scale.

Then there's another issue: I think socialists should call for the protests
to be held during regular work hours and to involve civil disruption. In
other words, to call for workers to walk off their jobs. That then
indirectly starts to raise the issue of a political strike. This, in turn,
will run us head long up against the union leadership... which is purely a
good thing.

I make this last point having had some experience with this. Back around
2009 or so, there was a call for a one-day protest around education issues
here in Oakland. Thousands of students walked out of their schools. In the
coalition organizing for this, a debate arose whether to hold the main
protest during the day or after work hours. All those who didn't want a
conflict with the union leadership supported the second option. At the end
of the day, we won out and held it during the day and into the afternoon.
But I think it was vitally important to have that debate and to get the
majority in favor of calling it during work hours. It was equally important
to have Oakland's working class  youth (overwhelmingly youth of color) at
the center of the event.

John Reimann
-- 
*“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black
Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Michael Meeropol via Marxism]

  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.
*

My vote for slogan --- quoting Langston Hughes "Let America be America
Again!"

I agree any demonstration will be in danger of being hijacked by Dems
seeking the Presidential nomination (the speakers' list could be 30 people
-- all candidates !!!).

That's why the organizers have to make it anti-TRUMP but not pro-Democrat
-- it needs to be a warning to the dems to not compomise.

Another slogan:  "No Retreat, No Surrender!"  (Bruce)
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Anthony Boynton via Marxism]

  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.
*

Lou's idea of a "united front" demonstration against Trump could be a good
idea, but what unifying slogan do you think is likely to be used: Out Now!
Impeach Trump!?

In any case, I think the Democrats and most of their coterie are not likely
to be in the mood for demonstrations if they win the house, even less if
they win the Senate. If they do win one or both, it's very liked that any
demos will take on the coloring of "Impeach Trump" lending themselves to
the presidential campaigns of any Demo willing to latch on to impeachment.

Anthony
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Richard Fidler via Marxism]

  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.
*

In answer to Tim Nelson, I tried to indicate some of the particular
circumstances behind the initial steps that led to QS in my comment concerning
Mark Lause's post:

"But this is the result of a long process that began about 20 years ago, when
some survivors of the old Trotskyist and “Marxist-Leninist” (Maoist) groups of
the 1970s began to get together and discuss how to build a new broad left party.
Over the next few years they reached broad agreement to put aside old doctrinal
differences of 20th century socialism and to focus on a few key programmatic
themes: feminism, left pluralism, opposition to global imperialism, and, not
least, in the Quebec context support for Quebec national independence from the
Canadian state (an intellectually liberating concept as it freed their thinking
from the restrictions imposed by the existing constitutional division of
powers). This could not have occurred until the dominant pro-independence party,
the Parti québécois (PQ), had become widely discredited as a result of its
implementation of capitalist austerity while in government and its failure to
win majority support for independence in the 1995 referendum.

"Crucially, the regroupment process sought ways to build alliances with the
existing social movements, especially the women’s movement (still relatively
strong at that time in Quebec, where the world march of women began) and the
“altermondialiste” (global justice) movement. More recently the fight against
climate change has become a dominant theme."

Although the Trotskyists had supported Quebec independence, the much larger
forces in the various M-L (Maoist) groups did not and they went into crisis
after the 1980 referendum; their opposition to feminism was another major factor
in their demise. The best elements in these groups learned the lessons and by
the mid-1990s saw the strategic advantage in promoting independence and
supporting the women's movement which was very active at the time. The crisis of
the Parti québécois acted as a detonator of the movement to build a left
political alternative.

As to Louis's suggestion of a march on Washington, below, I would add: And why
not propose a wide-open (or possibly delegated) conference in conjunction with
such a march, in which the various participants could attempt to identify and
begin to define some key objectives and demands around which a radical
anti-systemic political alternative might be built, and set up a representative
steering committee to pilot the project in coming months? That was how the
antiwar movement functioned best in the Sixties. I participated in some of those
marches and conferences, in which the various options for action were debated
and next actions were adopted (remember Fred Halstead taking on people like
Frank Emspak in a memorable debate at a conference in Washington, around 1965).
Those were heady days!

Richard

-Original Message-
From: Marxism [mailto:marxism-boun...@lists.csbs.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Louis
Proyect via Marxism
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 2:12 PM
To: rfid...@ncf.ca
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

  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.
*

On 11/2/18 1:45 PM, Michael Meeropol via Marxism wrote:
> RIGHT NOW -- we have a reason for a sustained movement -- resistance to
> Trump and Trumpism, resistance to revived out-there racism and the
> xenophobia that permits too many Americans to buy Trump's bullshit about an
> "invasion" --- that sustained resistance has got to continue -- and the
> coalition is very broad, including people we might otherwise want nothing
> to do with (remember "war criminals for peace" who joined the anti-Vietnam
> War coalition when Nixon was President!!) --- but that sustained movement
> (which will be with us through 2020 and maybe [gasp!] 2024) might be
> another 1970s moment to contemplate.

I think a united front against Trump is absolutely necessary but in 
bringing up the Vietnam antiwar movement that I was deeply involved with 
from 1967 to 1973 as an SWP member Michael points in the direction of 
what is needed today.

A mass demonstration in Washington is urgently needed to bring together 
every activist group and segment of the population they fight for. A 
million people will have much more impact than anything. I am no

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Michael Meeropol via Marxism]

  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.
*

TOTALLY AGREE --- what we DON'T want to see happen is for the DEMS to take
the House and then tell us, "Okay guys and gals, we'll take it from
here!"   In fact, if the DEMS take the House such a massive demonstration
in washington to hold their feet to the fire is needed more than ever.

Hopefully, the organizers of the first women's march are ALREADY thinking
about this for January, 2019.

(and anyone on this list with lines to ANYONE in leadership, please tell
them.)



> _
>
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

On 11/2/18 1:45 PM, Michael Meeropol via Marxism wrote:

RIGHT NOW -- we have a reason for a sustained movement -- resistance to
Trump and Trumpism, resistance to revived out-there racism and the
xenophobia that permits too many Americans to buy Trump's bullshit about an
"invasion" --- that sustained resistance has got to continue -- and the
coalition is very broad, including people we might otherwise want nothing
to do with (remember "war criminals for peace" who joined the anti-Vietnam
War coalition when Nixon was President!!) --- but that sustained movement
(which will be with us through 2020 and maybe [gasp!] 2024) might be
another 1970s moment to contemplate.


I think a united front against Trump is absolutely necessary but in 
bringing up the Vietnam antiwar movement that I was deeply involved with 
from 1967 to 1973 as an SWP member Michael points in the direction of 
what is needed today.


A mass demonstration in Washington is urgently needed to bring together 
every activist group and segment of the population they fight for. A 
million people will have much more impact than anything. I am not even 
arguing against DSA or whoever trying to get Democrats elected. People 
have made up their minds on that, after all.


But a steering committee of Bhaskar Sunkara, Medea Benjamin, Cornel 
West, Chris Hedges, and Ralph Nader could serve as a nucleus for local 
committees getting people on buses. That organizational framework could 
also serve as the nerve center of anti-Trump activity until the bastard 
is either impeached or forced to resign.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Michael Meeropol via Marxism]

  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.
*

The question was asked whether the willingness of the "sectarian groups" in
Quebec to unite in forming a single political organization could be
translated to US 21st century realities -- There is a model -- (maybe!)

The FIFTH AVENUE PARADE COMMITTEE that began organizing demonstrations
against the US War in Vietnam during 1965 involved Trotskyists, Communists,
Pacifists, and Liberals from SANE --- this organization got a national
meeting in Cleveland in the FALL of 1966 to opt for recurring NATIONAL
demonstrations against the war (one in NYC and one in SF) in APrill of 1966
-- Fast forward to 1969 and we had the MOBE in the Fall ---

The anti-war movement was sustained, of course, by the successful
resistance of the Vietnamese, the US government's persistence in pursuing
"victory" in the war, the mounting GI toll, and the fact that young people
flocked to the movement in droves ---

Sectarianism tore SDS apart but SDS was only part of the movement --
demonstrations kept getting larger through 1971 ---

BUT -- uniting around the goal of ending the war (with 1000 different
tactics playing roles -- including by the way, the creation of the Peace
and Freedom Party in Cal) was not the same as forming a working class
party.   Attempts to do that in the 1970s (the various "New Communist
Movements") reverted to sectarian form and the potential "moment" was lost


There may be lessons from "what could have happened" in the early 1970s for
today --

RIGHT NOW -- we have a reason for a sustained movement -- resistance to
Trump and Trumpism, resistance to revived out-there racism and the
xenophobia that permits too many Americans to buy Trump's bullshit about an
"invasion" --- that sustained resistance has got to continue -- and the
coalition is very broad, including people we might otherwise want nothing
to do with (remember "war criminals for peace" who joined the anti-Vietnam
War coalition when Nixon was President!!) --- but that sustained movement
(which will be with us through 2020 and maybe [gasp!] 2024) might be
another 1970s moment to contemplate.




> 
> 
> 
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Sorry, that question was directed at Richard,  not Ken.

Tim N

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, 2:59 p.m. Tim Nelson  Ken - do you think there were any circumstances or conditions specific to
> Quebec at that time which led to left groups to behave in that manner?
>
> Similar projects have been embarked upon many times in other countries,
> and are often unsuccessful. "Setting aside our differences" is objectively
> and obviously a good idea, but seems much easier said than done.
>
> Tim N
>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, 3:52 p.m. Richard Fidler via Marxism <
> marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote:
>
>>   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.
>> *
>>
>> " Québec solidaire can be traced back to small, far left groups.  There
>> were years of slogging before they got where they are today.  That, I
>> think, is a lesson that can be taken from the Quebec experience."
>>
>> Ken misses the point. The breakthrough in Quebec came in the late 1990s
>> when the "small, far left groups" realized the need to stop slogging on
>> their own, to rethink the question of how to build an effective party of
>> the left, to set aside largely irrelevant or untimely differences and to
>> single out key forward-looking themes around which to unite and reach out
>> to broader forces.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> -Original Message-
>>
>> Ken Hiebert replies:
>> I read Richard’s reports on Quebec, and in particular Québec solitaire,
>> with great interest.  And I expect others do as well, but I wouldn’t be
>> surprised to learn that while they take heart from his reports they also
>> feel that the situation is so different in their own country, that they
>> can’t see how to apply the lessons of Quebec.
>> I will concede that there is insularity in English Canada. But even if in
>> English Canada we are closer to the experience in Quebec, it also seems
>> somewhat remote from what we confront in our own part of the country.
>>
>> Speaking from a distance, I would still like to contribute to the
>> discussion in the US.  If we are to make a break from the Democratic Party,
>> it must start with the limited forces we now have.  The first initiatives
>> will be small and have a modest impact.  Is there another way to break with
>> the Democrats?  Should we wait?  What would we be waiting for?  Inaction on
>> our part only reinforces the hegemony of the Democratic Party.
>>
>> Québec solidaire can be traced back to small, far left groups.  There
>> were years of slogging before they got where they are today.  That, I
>> think, is a lesson that can be taken from the Quebec experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
>> Set your options at:
>> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
>
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Mark Lause via Marxism]

  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.
*

. . . and this--alas!--seems to be the one simple and obvious insight that
none of the groups in the U.S. seem capable of reaching.

Imagine, if you will, that the ISO and Solidarity took a notion to work on
this sort of project together.  Would it not have had an effect on
Socialist Alternative and the other groups otherwise responding to
different influences, whether the apparent allure of the fleshpots of the
Democratic party or the attraction of getting to achievements by the
eternal jihad against the deadly menace of creeping Pabloism.  And, if
something like the DSA is an apt reflection of where we are right now, what
would it look like had something like this were undertaken--or had been
undertaken.  I think that, at the very least, we'd have a venue for the
kind of discussion, the absence of which John rightly deplores.

I'm not even talking regroupment--which I have favored for decades--just
cooperation on an electoral project.  Everybody would still get to be the
top dog in their own little kennel . . .. they'd just have to spend a wee
bit of time, energy and effort on doing something with the larger movement
in mind.  In places, it might have made sense to work through the Greens or
Peace and Freedom.  (In places--New York, for example--it might still make
sense.)  Elsewhere, other venues may be of service.

Or we can sit it out and condemn everything, deploring the dunderheadedness
of the working class that looks to electoral politics as a means of
influencing their future and struggling to find a "lesser evil," partly
because the socialist left hasn't figured out to put together a viable
positive good at its disposal.

Cheers,
Mark L.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Tim Nelson via Marxism]

  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.
*

Ken - do you think there were any circumstances or conditions specific to
Quebec at that time which led to left groups to behave in that manner?

Similar projects have been embarked upon many times in other countries, and
are often unsuccessful. "Setting aside our differences" is objectively and
obviously a good idea, but seems much easier said than done.

Tim N

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, 3:52 p.m. Richard Fidler via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote:

>   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.
> *
>
> " Québec solidaire can be traced back to small, far left groups.  There
> were years of slogging before they got where they are today.  That, I
> think, is a lesson that can be taken from the Quebec experience."
>
> Ken misses the point. The breakthrough in Quebec came in the late 1990s
> when the "small, far left groups" realized the need to stop slogging on
> their own, to rethink the question of how to build an effective party of
> the left, to set aside largely irrelevant or untimely differences and to
> single out key forward-looking themes around which to unite and reach out
> to broader forces.
>
> Richard
>
> -Original Message-
>
> Ken Hiebert replies:
> I read Richard’s reports on Quebec, and in particular Québec solitaire,
> with great interest.  And I expect others do as well, but I wouldn’t be
> surprised to learn that while they take heart from his reports they also
> feel that the situation is so different in their own country, that they
> can’t see how to apply the lessons of Quebec.
> I will concede that there is insularity in English Canada. But even if in
> English Canada we are closer to the experience in Quebec, it also seems
> somewhat remote from what we confront in our own part of the country.
>
> Speaking from a distance, I would still like to contribute to the
> discussion in the US.  If we are to make a break from the Democratic Party,
> it must start with the limited forces we now have.  The first initiatives
> will be small and have a modest impact.  Is there another way to break with
> the Democrats?  Should we wait?  What would we be waiting for?  Inaction on
> our part only reinforces the hegemony of the Democratic Party.
>
> Québec solidaire can be traced back to small, far left groups.  There were
> years of slogging before they got where they are today.  That, I think, is
> a lesson that can be taken from the Quebec experience.
>
>
>
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Richard Fidler via Marxism]

  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.
*

" Québec solidaire can be traced back to small, far left groups.  There were 
years of slogging before they got where they are today.  That, I think, is a 
lesson that can be taken from the Quebec experience."

Ken misses the point. The breakthrough in Quebec came in the late 1990s when 
the "small, far left groups" realized the need to stop slogging on their own, 
to rethink the question of how to build an effective party of the left, to set 
aside largely irrelevant or untimely differences and to single out key 
forward-looking themes around which to unite and reach out to broader forces.

Richard

-Original Message-

Ken Hiebert replies:
I read Richard’s reports on Quebec, and in particular Québec solitaire, with 
great interest.  And I expect others do as well, but I wouldn’t be surprised to 
learn that while they take heart from his reports they also feel that the 
situation is so different in their own country, that they can’t see how to 
apply the lessons of Quebec.
I will concede that there is insularity in English Canada. But even if in 
English Canada we are closer to the experience in Quebec, it also seems 
somewhat remote from what we confront in our own part of the country.

Speaking from a distance, I would still like to contribute to the discussion in 
the US.  If we are to make a break from the Democratic Party, it must start 
with the limited forces we now have.  The first initiatives will be small and 
have a modest impact.  Is there another way to break with the Democrats?  
Should we wait?  What would we be waiting for?  Inaction on our part only 
reinforces the hegemony of the Democratic Party.

Québec solidaire can be traced back to small, far left groups.  There were 
years of slogging before they got where they are today.  That, I think, is a 
lesson that can be taken from the Quebec experience.



_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Ken Hiebert via Marxism]

  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.
*

Richard Fidler said:

This is a recurring discussion on Marxmail and on any number of left web sites 
at least once every two years in line with the US elections calendar. How do we 
build a mass left party in the mighty USA? May I modestly suggest you look at 
some nearby examples in other countries for some ideas on how this might be 
done. As it is, I think the US left suffers as much as the Anglo-Canadian left 
from its insularity. 

I posted this month two articles to this list that just might have some 
relevance to your dilemma, and as usual when I post such items they met with no 
comment and to my knowledge no interest. But I think some of you might find it 
useful to look a little more closely at a phenomenon right on your doorstep, in 
Quebec. Here, once again, are those articles. A search of the Marxmail archives 
would reveal much more. Or, for my pieces alone, a search of my blog: 
http://lifeonleft.blogspot.com/ . Just look 
for "Québec solidaire." Every 
national experience is unique, sui generis. But some generalizations are 
possible, if we probe deeply enough. And there is much to learn from each.


Ken Hiebert replies:
I read Richard’s reports on Quebec, and in particular Québec solitaire, with 
great interest.  And I expect others do as well, but I wouldn’t be surprised to 
learn that while they take heart from his reports they also feel that the 
situation is so different in their own country, that they can’t see how to 
apply the lessons of Quebec.
I will concede that there is insularity in English Canada. But even if in 
English Canada we are closer to the experience in Quebec, it also seems 
somewhat remote from what we confront in our own part of the country.

Speaking from a distance, I would still like to contribute to the discussion in 
the US.  If we are to make a break from the Democratic Party, it must start 
with the limited forces we now have.  The first initiatives will be small and 
have a modest impact.  Is there another way to break with the Democrats?  
Should we wait?  What would we be waiting for?  Inaction on our part only 
reinforces the hegemony of the Democratic Party.

Québec solidaire can be traced back to small, far left groups.  There were 
years of slogging before they got where they are today.  That, I think, is a 
lesson that can be taken from the Quebec experience.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

On 11/1/18 9:50 PM, John Reimann via Marxism wrote:

To me, it is not being "ideologically kosher" to believe that if you want
to build a socialist movement in Oakland, one with any real meaning, then
you have to orient to the kind of youth that attend Laney College. Or if it
is "ideologically kosher", then I plead guilty. Proudly.


My wife teaches at a place just like Laney. 80 percent of her students 
are Black or Latino and have day jobs working as bank tellers or in 
their parents' bodega. They have absolutely no time or energy to become 
activists even though they all hate Trump and can easily be convinced 
that capitalism is evil--this despite their ambitions to get an MBA and 
a better job. If you organized a meeting for DSA at Lehman College, 
nobody would show up. Trust me.


The reality is that students at Berkeley, NYU, Columbia are joining the 
DSA and doing things. There are reasons for this just as there were in 
the 60s. The antiwar movement didn't start at Community Colleges but 
were eventually swept along.


James P. Cannon once said that the art of politics is knowing what to do 
next. Cannon was fucked up in may ways but he also was a genius who 
absorbed the best of the IWW and the early Communist Party.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[John Reimann via Marxism]

  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.
*

Louis writes: "What does it mean to have an "outlook" toward the working
class? To
believe that it is potentially w revolutionary agent? I doubt that this
has any value except to show that you are ideologically kosher."

What it means is this: On Tuesday night I went to a meeting of the East Bay
DSA "socialist" night school. Like all the others, the meeting was totally
scripted. It started with a typically boring speaker and then with little
breakout groups where we had to discuss some questions that, typically,
simply nibbled around the edges of the issue. When I tried to raise the
issue of needing a working class party, it was cut off by the chair.

All of this is bad enough, but the part that's worse is that this approach
is warmly embraced by the members. Yes, I remember all the meetings of my
former union - Carpenters Union - where superficially something similar was
at work. But there at least there was something real at stake - in most
cases those who attended the meetings (a tiny, tiny percentage) were those
who were on the make - trying to get a job as a full time union official,
or already had such a job. On the job, things were totally different. Not
so with the great majority of DSA members I've come across.

Take the issue of the Oakland A's stadium: I wrote quite a bit about it
last year. How it was planned to be built right across the street from an
icon in the black community - Laney College; how it would have destroyed
Laney; how a movement at Laney was starting to develop in opposition. A
young comrade of mine and I went to a social meet-up of DSA right in this
neighborhood. We tried to get some interest in the issue. There was none.
Why? Because it didn't affect them and those in their social circle -
young, white college grads. They simply had no interest in the working
class youth who attend Laney.

To me, it is not being "ideologically kosher" to believe that if you want
to build a socialist movement in Oakland, one with any real meaning, then
you have to orient to the kind of youth that attend Laney College. Or if it
is "ideologically kosher", then I plead guilty. Proudly.

John Reimann
PS. As far as the local Green Party, they are no better. And as far as the
Peace and Freedom Party, they are completely overtaken by the sectarian
left, the type who all support Assad, while denying that they do.
-- 
*“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black
Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Mark Lause via Marxism]

  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.
*

Please, God.  Let's not go jousting windmills in search of a precise
definitions of class and classitudity (or classitudityness).  What matters
isn't our fine tuning these things among ourselves but addressing how
people who are not on this list address these things.

Finally, I'm astonished by the idea that I've never been a member of a
working class organization.  I have been in any number of unions over the
course of the last 50+ years, but none of them ever shared a class
perspective or outlook.

Cheers,
Mark L.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

On 11/1/18 5:21 PM, John Reimann via Marxism wrote:

However, their outlook is not towards the
working class as an independent force.


What does it mean to have an "outlook" toward the working class? To 
believe that it is potentially w revolutionary agent? I doubt that this 
has any value except to show that you are ideologically kosher.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Ralph Johansen via Marxism]

  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.
*

John Reimann

In reply to Richard Fidler:

All too many socialists define the issue as being the building of a 
"party of the left" or of a "mass socialist party". That is the 
completely wrong way of looking at the matter. The issue simply is that 
all political parties are based on one class or another. The Republicans 
and Democrats are capitalist parties. The working class has no party of 
its own. Again, to emphasize: What is needed is a *party based on the 
working class.* That is the way to look at the matter.


John Reimann wrote

In reply to Richard Fidler:

All too many socialists define the issue as being the building of a 
"party of the left" or of a "mass socialist party". That is the 
completely wrong way of looking at the matter. The issue simply is that 
all political parties are based on one class or another. The Republicans 
and Democrats are capitalist parties. The working class has no party of 
its own. Again, to emphasize: What is needed is a *party based on the 
working class.* That is the way to look at the matter.


John Reimann

Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook

I suggest that we continue to do basic homework on specifics, as 
contradictions mount. One thing we badly need is a further analysis of 
class, one that does not simply set up static Weberian categories or 
ideal types in the manner of what Erik Olin Wright has done in the past, 
but that examines in all their fluidity and tenuous nature the present 
and likely emerging dominant categories of work, and their relationship 
to the law of value and the extraction of surplus. Among other things, 
that might help to establish which broader fractions of the working 
class can be counted on as being in the forefront, and in it for the 
distance. and therefore which might be reliable allies on which to grow 
and spread. Also, the ways in which those categories of labor have 
changed, evolved and flowed with changes in the nature of the capitalist 
processes of production, and in what ways they are presently doing so. 
And above all probably, closer analysis of the global picture; better 
understanding of the stratagems, or unintended consequences, of the 
movement of profit-seeking-at-any-price transnational capital in 
relation to the working class, and how we counteract capital's immense 
power to keep the working class, regional, vertical and horizontal 
divisions of labor, invidious distinctions nationally and tribally, 
divided and off-balance.


Mentioned in the business literature I have seen as principal developing 
areas of new employment are health-care and health-related forms of 
work, including care of the aging and bio-tech. Another featured 
prominently is warehouse work, with burgeoning online commerce and 
aspects of industrial expansion. As to health-care related work, of 
course, much of it is spread widely and thinly, somewhat as is 
traditional housework and care in the home, but by no means all, and 
that deserves close attention. The other, warehouse work, may grow and 
become more significant as a powerful category of work. But I think of 
the analogous case of what has happened to dockworkers and the 
composition of labor in shipping, where the docks are so automated that 
now a few workers suffice to press buttons and read charts. Does the 
same not easily apply to warehouse work?


This is a neglected area, from my reading, and a much-needed one. Unless 
we better survey and understand the lay of the land in the working class 
on a deeper level, I don't see how anyone can very well construct 
reliable models for action and strategy.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[John Reimann via Marxism]

  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.
*

In the first place, none of the candidates I mentioned are from the tiny
and (hopefully) irrelevant left sects. All of them have an independent base
in the different protest movements in which they have participated.

Second, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that I define working class
as being blue collar factory workers. I use the term as it is meant to be
used - as wage workers. Yes, many in DSA are wage workers in that they work
for non profits for example. However, their outlook is not towards the
working class as an independent force. And they orient almost entirely
towards the liberal wing of the Democrats.

One reason I insist on describing the issue in class terms vs. ideological
is that the Democrats could make a turn towards the left. Then where are
we? Talking about a "left party" opens the door to supporting the "left"
wing of the Democrats. It also confuses the issue.

John Reimann

-- 
*“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black
Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Richard Fidler via Marxism]

  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.
*

"We would also raise the need for Ocasio-Cortez, or any socialist, to use their
position to help develop a clear program that goes beyond reforms and poses a
clear alternative to the dysfunctional capitalist system. This is an important
part of building the socialist movement because again and again she will be
pressured to moderate her positions by defenders of capitalism. If she does,
this can lower the confidence of working people to fight for even modest
reforms. By outlining a bold vision for socialist transformation she can help
politically prepare a new generation for what will be needed: taking the biggest
500 corporations into democratic public ownership and rebuilding society on the
basis of democratically planned economy that puts human need before corporate
greed.

"Ocasio-Cortez will undoubtedly play a positive and important role by providing
a contrast to spineless corporate Democrats, but it's highly unlikely that
Ocasio-Cortez would take the approach proposed above. We outline it here to
raise the sights of our readers and explain a Marxist vision for the kind of
movement needed along with what role an elected socialist could play."

<
https://www.socialistalternative.org/2018/10/04/ocasio-cortez-provide-bold-lead-
socialists-elected-office/>


-Original Message-
From: Marxism [mailto:marxism-boun...@lists.csbs.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Mark
Lause via Marxism
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 2:59 PM
To: rfid...@ncf.ca
Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

  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.
*

SAlt?  Say it ain't so . . . . :-)

I saw a video of them singing "the Internationale" at their convention.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/rfidler%40ncf.ca

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Mark Lause via Marxism]

  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.
*

SAlt?  Say it ain't so . . . . :-)

I saw a video of them singing "the Internationale" at their convention.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

On 11/1/18 2:41 PM, Mark Lause wrote:


There is no reason why the various socialist groups couldn't put 
together a common ticket.  None.  I had hoped that Sawant's victory 
would have moved things that direction, but it didn't.  But why wouldn't 
this happen?  Why didn't it happen years ago?  Or even decades ago?


Probably the result of Socialist Alternative's drift toward the DP that 
has gone full-tilt boogie with their ringing doorbells for A. O-C.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Mark Lause via Marxism]

  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.
*

I actually don't think that independent political action has to be--or
should be--restricted to sectified efforts.  The Greens in this state got
104,000 votes for governor in 2014 with a very minimal campaign.  Now, if
you actually put some will behind it--and the desire to actually organize a
real third party--we might be talking about something serious.  Socialists
hereabouts said that they didn't want to dirty their hands with the
Greens.  (Turns out that they were keeping them clean to support Bernie
Sanders.)  Democrats or aspiring power-brokers with the Democrats pop up to
derail and dead end these things all the time. (As they do with whatever
wiggles the direction of independent mass movements generally.)

There is no reason why the various socialist groups couldn't put together a
common ticket.  None.  I had hoped that Sawant's victory would have moved
things that direction, but it didn't.  But why wouldn't this happen?  Why
didn't it happen years ago?  Or even decades ago?

These are questions in my mind that ask themselves every election.

Cheers,
Mark L.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

On 11/1/18 11:59 AM, John Reimann via Marxism wrote:


In reply to Richard Fidler:

All too many socialists define the issue as being the building of a "party
of the left" or of a "mass socialist party". That is the completely wrong
way of looking at the matter. The issue simply is that all political
parties are based on one class or another. The Republicans and Democrats
are capitalist parties. The working class has no party of its own. Again,
to emphasize: What is needed is a *party based on the working class.* That
is the way to look at the matter.

John Reimann



John, in class terms, what would be the difference between the Greens 
and the DSA if the DSA decided to run as socialists rather than back the 
DP? There is no difference. They are made up primarily of white-collar 
wage workers, professionals and petty proprietors.


If you define working class as the traditional blue-collar, 
assembly-line type positions that were at the forefront of the CIO 
organizing drives and who joined the CPUSA in the 1930s, there is no 
sign of any equivalence today. People who are ready to start a new party 
tend to be school teachers, web developers, nurses, social workers, etc. 
These are not only the people who join the DSA or the GPUSA today but 
who also joined the Trotskyist movement in the 1960s and 70s.


Nothing would make me happier than to discover that a bunch of 
rank-and-file steelworkers had decided to start a new party but it will 
take years and years of class confrontation to see anything like that 
happening. Essentially, you are supporting a good idea that has no basis 
in objective conditions.


Revolutionary organizations that have tried to build parties "based in 
the working class" have come up empty. There are many explanations for 
this that have mostly to do with the post-WWII economic situation but 
going into it in any kind of detail would take some time to do right. I 
don't have that time right now, maybe later.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[John Reimann via Marxism]

  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.
*

In reply to Richard Fidler:

All too many socialists define the issue as being the building of a "party
of the left" or of a "mass socialist party". That is the completely wrong
way of looking at the matter. The issue simply is that all political
parties are based on one class or another. The Republicans and Democrats
are capitalist parties. The working class has no party of its own. Again,
to emphasize: What is needed is a *party based on the working class.* That
is the way to look at the matter.

John Reimann
-- 
*“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black
Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Richard Fidler via Marxism]

  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.
*

Oops, the references to 1972 and 1976 below should be, of course, to 2002 and 
2006. Guess I am still living in the 20th century.

-Original Message-
From: Marxism [mailto:marxism-boun...@lists.csbs.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Richard 
Fidler via Marxism
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 9:58 AM
To: rfid...@ncf.ca
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

  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.
*

Thanks, Mark. 

 

It strikes me that “independent political action” in the US at present comes 
down to a largely ideological action – small sects running candidates in their 
own name hoping to attract some individuals to their “party,” or simply 
commenting from the sidelines. Perhaps that is all that is possible at this 
time, as you may be suggesting. Obviously, in Quebec (not in Canada as a whole, 
unfortunately) we are in a much more favourable position. Québec solidaire is a 
party with a much more developed program than anything you have in the USA, and 
is certainly much more influential than the DSA or any of the sects. 

 

But this is the result of a long process that began about 20 years ago, when 
some survivors of the old Trotskyist and “Marxist-Leninist” (Maoist) groups of 
the 1970s began to get together and discuss how to build a new broad left 
party. Over the next few years they reached broad agreement to put aside old 
doctrinal differences of 20th century socialism and to focus on a few key 
programmatic themes: feminism, left pluralism, opposition to global 
imperialism, and, not least, in the Quebec context support for Quebec national 
independence from the Canadian state (an intellectually liberating concept as 
it freed their thinking from the restrictions imposed by the existing 
constitutional division of powers). This could not have occurred until the 
dominant pro-independence party, the Parti québécois (PQ), had become widely 
discredited as a result of its implementation of capitalist austerity while in 
government and its failure to win majority support for independence in the 1995 
referendum.

 

Crucially, the regroupment process sought ways to build alliances with the 
existing social movements, especially the women’s movement (still relatively 
strong at that time in Quebec, where the world march of women began) and the 
“altermondialiste” (global justice) movement. More recently the fight against 
climate change has become a dominant theme.

 

Then they began a few electoralist experiments – a candidacy against the PQ 
prime minister, in which their candidate (Michel Chartrand, an old 
social-democratic leader) got about 18% of the vote, and most successfully in 
2001 in a Montréal by-election where their candidate (a leader of a short-lived 
municipal workers party in the early 1970s) got 24% of the vote. This led to 
the formation of a “union of progressive forces” (UFP) in 1972, followed in 
1976 by a merger with a coalition of feminist and community-oriented social 
movements to form Québec solidaire. 

 [snip]


_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Richard Fidler via Marxism]

  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.
*

Thanks, Mark. 

 

It strikes me that “independent political action” in the US at present comes 
down to a largely ideological action – small sects running candidates in their 
own name hoping to attract some individuals to their “party,” or simply 
commenting from the sidelines. Perhaps that is all that is possible at this 
time, as you may be suggesting. Obviously, in Quebec (not in Canada as a whole, 
unfortunately) we are in a much more favourable position. Québec solidaire is a 
party with a much more developed program than anything you have in the USA, and 
is certainly much more influential than the DSA or any of the sects. 

 

But this is the result of a long process that began about 20 years ago, when 
some survivors of the old Trotskyist and “Marxist-Leninist” (Maoist) groups of 
the 1970s began to get together and discuss how to build a new broad left 
party. Over the next few years they reached broad agreement to put aside old 
doctrinal differences of 20th century socialism and to focus on a few key 
programmatic themes: feminism, left pluralism, opposition to global 
imperialism, and, not least, in the Quebec context support for Quebec national 
independence from the Canadian state (an intellectually liberating concept as 
it freed their thinking from the restrictions imposed by the existing 
constitutional division of powers). This could not have occurred until the 
dominant pro-independence party, the Parti québécois (PQ), had become widely 
discredited as a result of its implementation of capitalist austerity while in 
government and its failure to win majority support for independence in the 1995 
referendum.

 

Crucially, the regroupment process sought ways to build alliances with the 
existing social movements, especially the women’s movement (still relatively 
strong at that time in Quebec, where the world march of women began) and the 
“altermondialiste” (global justice) movement. More recently the fight against 
climate change has become a dominant theme.

 

Then they began a few electoralist experiments – a candidacy against the PQ 
prime minister, in which their candidate (Michel Chartrand, an old 
social-democratic leader) got about 18% of the vote, and most successfully in 
2001 in a Montréal by-election where their candidate (a leader of a short-lived 
municipal workers party in the early 1970s) got 24% of the vote. This led to 
the formation of a “union of progressive forces” (UFP) in 1972, followed in 
1976 by a merger with a coalition of feminist and community-oriented social 
movements to form Québec solidaire. 

 

Since then QS has sought to operate as both “a party of the ballot-boxes and 
the streets” (the expression first popularized in France by the Ligue 
communiste révolutionnaire), although there is a strong pull toward electoral 
action as the priority. The party’s elected members see themselves as 
parliamentary spokespersons for the social movements, but QS still has to 
define more clearly how to work in conjunction with the broader social 
movements.

 

There is much more to be said, of course, and I have tried over the years to 
document and analyze this process for a non-Quebec English-speaking left 
audience. But I often wonder if a somewhat analogous process might be possible 
south of the border. You certainly have many mass protest movements, but as you 
say they tend to be one-off single-issue and “punctual” efforts, without 
sustained existence. However, the recent rapid growth of the DSA suggests there 
is an appetite for something more permanent and positive, even if its 
“socialism” is largely undefined. You also have an intellectually productive 
left judging from the materials often referenced on Marxmail (Counterpunch, 
Truthout, etc.) and of course the remnants of some 20th century sects such as 
the ISO or Against the Current. So far you lack (as do we in English Canada) 
some agglutinizing influence that could initiate a broader regroupment process. 
In Quebec this existed largely because of the Québécois national question and 
its radicalizing influence on young people. (This was completely misunderstood 
by the sole article Jacobin published on the recent Quebec election campaign.)

 

I’ll leave it there, for now. But as I say I think there is much the US (and 
Anglo-Canadian) left could learn from the Quebec experience. The language 
difference complicates this, of course. But that can be overcome with a little 
effort.

 

Richard

 

From: Mark Lause [mailto:markala...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:07 PM
To: Richard Fidler; Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
Subject: Re: [Marxism] D

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Mark Lause via Marxism]

  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.
*

 Thanks, Richard.  An interesting piece.

I agree with the points made about the necessity of independent mass
movements, etc.--but I think that we're finding ourselves in a very
different situation than the old road maps would have indicated.  There are
lots of reasons for this, but I'll try to avoid tangents.

The biggest single problem we've faced over the last few decades has been
the smudging between mass movements and protests (I similarly think that
the idea of building a party with protest votes is equally problematic.)
The big women's march after Trump's election and some of the later actions,
including the Kavenaugh protests, recycled an idea that came out of
Occupy.  We have protests that are essentially one-offs, and exist mostly
at the whim of the Democratic Party or sections thereof.

Part of this likely draws on the desire for television wallpapering
comparable to that provided by the earlier Tea Party B.S. that Republican
lobbyists funded and fielded.  These never really amounted to much as a
movement in the streets, but it was heavily hyped, widely discussed and
treated as a serious "movement" by those who wanted the Republican Party to
pursue its mad agenda.

In the process, the very idea of what a movement was and is supposed to do
seems to have been taken out of our hands and translated into something of
a ritualized street theatre that existed to frame whatever B.S. the
politicians wanted to hype.

That kind of non-movement "movement" isn't going to give rise to
independent political action--no more than building a fanciful "wing" of
the Democratic party is going to lead to the emergence of a mass party of
the working class.

A major priority would seem to me to involve our regaining control over
what a movement is and what it needs to do.

In that sense, independent political action can play something of a role on
that question right now.

Conversely, not doing anything about it cedes the venue to the dead end of
"lesser evil" politics and whatever degree of conservatism is passing as
"liberal" these days.

Cheers,
Mark L.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Richard Fidler via Marxism]

  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.
*

This is a recurring discussion on Marxmail and on any number of left web sites 
at least once every two years in line with the US elections calendar. How do we 
build a mass left party in the mighty USA? May I modestly suggest you look at 
some nearby examples in other countries for some ideas on how this might be 
done. As it is, I think the US left suffers as much as the Anglo-Canadian left 
from its insularity. 

I posted this month two articles to this list that just might have some 
relevance to your dilemma, and as usual when I post such items they met with no 
comment and to my knowledge no interest. But I think some of you might find it 
useful to look a little more closely at a phenomenon right on your doorstep, in 
Quebec. Here, once again, are those articles. A search of the Marxmail archives 
would reveal much more. Or, for my pieces alone, a search of my blog: 
http://lifeonleft.blogspot.com/. Just look for "Québec solidaire." Every 
national experience is unique, sui generis. But some generalizations are 
possible, if we probe deeply enough. And there is much to learn from each.

http://tinyurl.com/y9b44aqr
and
http://tinyurl.com/y897vb7z

Richard

-Original Message-
From: Marxism [mailto:marxism-boun...@lists.csbs.utah.edu] On Behalf Of John 
Reimann via Marxism
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 2:41 PM
To: rfid...@ncf.ca
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

  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.
*

This thread has evolved into a discussion on the alternatives to the
Democrats and how that might develop. I believe one way it could develop is
for local movements to throw up candidates for local office, with such
candidates running on an explicitly anti-Democratic/Republican Party
platform and linking up the local issues with the need for a working class
party. I would like to point out that that is starting to happen - halfway.
We have had:


   - Nikita Oliver run for mayor of Seattle in 2017. Oliver has been active
   in various protest movements in Seattle for years.
   - Sarah Morken run for city council in Tacoma in 2017. Sarah has been
   active in the 15 Now campaign and various other protest movements in that
   city.
   - Cat Brooks running for mayor in Oakland at present. Cat is one of the
   most prominent figures in the equivalent of the Black Lives Matter movement
   in this city.
   - Noonie "Belden Man" Batiste running for congress in New Orleans.
   Noonie has been very active in the housing rights campaigns in that city.
   - Last but not least, Cliff Willmeng running for Boulder County (CO)
   commissioner. Cliff is probably the foremost radical anti-fracking activist
   in Colorado. I did an interview with Cliff here
   
<https://oaklandsocialist.com/2018/10/04/interview-cliff-willmeng-workers-candidate-for-boulder-county-commissioner/>
   .

In several of these cases, such as Cat Brooks, the campaign is far from
clear about the necessity to break from the Democrats and build a working
class alternative. The campaign of Nikita Oliver has led to the formation
of a "People's Party", but it's far from clear how this "party" differs
from the Green Party.

Well over a year ago, a small group of us submitted a proposal to the East
Bay DSA chapter that we initiate a discussion within the chapter about
running our own local candidates on the basis described above. Predictably,
the chapter leadership nixed the idea. Instead, they and it seems DSA as a
whole have simply become the mobilizers for various liberal Democrats who
happen to call themselves "democratic socialist". But I do think that
potential for local candidates is there.

We should also keep in mind that a working class party does not necessarily
have to emerge through running candidates. It could emerge by coordinating
the movement in the streets and work places and in the unions too. There is
the potential for such a movement to develop around the issue of voter
suppression. Unfortunately, nobody on the left is really making much of an
issue of this. That leaves it up to the Democrats, who are channeling
everything into legal challenges. We saw how great that worked with the
election of George Bush!

Finally, as far as the Greens and the Peace and Freedom Party: I don't see
the Greens as being filled out by any significant sec

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[John Reimann via Marxism]

  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.
*

This thread has evolved into a discussion on the alternatives to the
Democrats and how that might develop. I believe one way it could develop is
for local movements to throw up candidates for local office, with such
candidates running on an explicitly anti-Democratic/Republican Party
platform and linking up the local issues with the need for a working class
party. I would like to point out that that is starting to happen - halfway.
We have had:


   - Nikita Oliver run for mayor of Seattle in 2017. Oliver has been active
   in various protest movements in Seattle for years.
   - Sarah Morken run for city council in Tacoma in 2017. Sarah has been
   active in the 15 Now campaign and various other protest movements in that
   city.
   - Cat Brooks running for mayor in Oakland at present. Cat is one of the
   most prominent figures in the equivalent of the Black Lives Matter movement
   in this city.
   - Noonie "Belden Man" Batiste running for congress in New Orleans.
   Noonie has been very active in the housing rights campaigns in that city.
   - Last but not least, Cliff Willmeng running for Boulder County (CO)
   commissioner. Cliff is probably the foremost radical anti-fracking activist
   in Colorado. I did an interview with Cliff here
   

   .

In several of these cases, such as Cat Brooks, the campaign is far from
clear about the necessity to break from the Democrats and build a working
class alternative. The campaign of Nikita Oliver has led to the formation
of a "People's Party", but it's far from clear how this "party" differs
from the Green Party.

Well over a year ago, a small group of us submitted a proposal to the East
Bay DSA chapter that we initiate a discussion within the chapter about
running our own local candidates on the basis described above. Predictably,
the chapter leadership nixed the idea. Instead, they and it seems DSA as a
whole have simply become the mobilizers for various liberal Democrats who
happen to call themselves "democratic socialist". But I do think that
potential for local candidates is there.

We should also keep in mind that a working class party does not necessarily
have to emerge through running candidates. It could emerge by coordinating
the movement in the streets and work places and in the unions too. There is
the potential for such a movement to develop around the issue of voter
suppression. Unfortunately, nobody on the left is really making much of an
issue of this. That leaves it up to the Democrats, who are channeling
everything into legal challenges. We saw how great that worked with the
election of George Bush!

Finally, as far as the Greens and the Peace and Freedom Party: I don't see
the Greens as being filled out by any significant sector of workers. So I
think it will remain stagnating in its swamp. As far as P&FP, they have
been captured by various left sects, all of which support Assad. (As does
one of the more prominent leaders of the Greens - Ajamu Baraka.) I cannot
see how they can develop, given their false methods.

John Reimann

-- 
*“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black
Jacobins" by C. L. R. James
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Anthony Boynton via Marxism]

  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.
*

A lot of us have spent years and decades trying. In California, the Peace
and Freedom Party was effectively scuttled by the Communist Party and other
supporters of the Democratic Party who gained control of its internal
machinery soon after it was formed. The old Socialist Workers Party ceded
this ground to the old CP by refusing to join this attempt at an umbrella
party to the left of the Democrats. Instead, it ran its own invisible and
useless sectarian campaigns. IMHO left third party efforts are essential,
but are unlikely to succeed in building anything significant until there is
a mass movement outside of the electoral arena.

Anthony

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 9:57 AM Mark Lause  wrote:

> The bottom line is there should be some sort of national progressive
> alternative.  Whether it calls itself socialist or labor or anything isn't
> as important as challenging the dictatorship of capitalism.   This could
> have happened and it didn't.
>
> Notwithstanding complaints about Our Revolution or the ambiguities of the
> DSA--and let's throw in the almost religious flakiness of the
> Greens--something could have been done about this.  And years ago.
>
> There are literally thousands of us ready to throw ourselves into such an
> effort.  This could have happened easily if two or three or more of the
> various socialist tiddlywinks clubs had decided that building this
> alternative--even temporarily.
>
> Doesn't it make you wonder?  :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Mark L.
>
>
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Mark Lause via Marxism]

  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.
*

The bottom line is there should be some sort of national progressive
alternative.  Whether it calls itself socialist or labor or anything isn't
as important as challenging the dictatorship of capitalism.   This could
have happened and it didn't.

Notwithstanding complaints about Our Revolution or the ambiguities of the
DSA--and let's throw in the almost religious flakiness of the
Greens--something could have been done about this.  And years ago.

There are literally thousands of us ready to throw ourselves into such an
effort.  This could have happened easily if two or three or more of the
various socialist tiddlywinks clubs had decided that building this
alternative--even temporarily.

Doesn't it make you wonder?  :-)

Cheers,
Mark L.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Democrats and Trump

[Anthony Boynton via Marxism]

  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.
*

Trump has been a useful idiot for the Republicans, so the Democrats are
hoping to have their turn. This is a new twist on the old two party shell
game, that the DSA-Our Revolutipn left will bear a share of responsibility
for in the Democrats take control of the House. Also, the implications for
Democratic plans for impeachment are there for anyone interested to read.

First Up if Democrats Win: Campaign and Ethics Changes, Infrastructure and
Drug Prices

Representative Nancy Pelosi says House Democrats will focus on
infrastructure and prescription drug costs, in an effort to test President
Trump on bipartisan deals, if they gain control of Congress in the midterm
election.CreditCreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

New York Times By Nicholas Fandos Oct. 31, 2018

WASHINGTON — Democrats would use their first month in the House majority to
advance sweeping changes to future campaign and ethics laws, requiring the
disclosure of shadowy political donors, outlawing the gerrymandering of
congressional districts and restoring key enforcement provisions to the
Voting Rights Act, top Democratic leaders said on Tuesday.



If they win, they would then turn to infrastructure investment and the
climbing costs of prescription drugs, answering voter demands and
challenging President Trump’s willingness to work on shared policy
priorities with a party he has vilified. The idea, said Representative
Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, is to show voters that
Democrats are a governing party, not the leftist mob that Mr. Trump
describes — and to extend an arm of cooperation to the president after an
electoral rebuke.



“This is going to be a bitter pill for them all to swallow when they see
the election results, if they turn out as we expect,” Ms. Pelosi said in an
extended interview on Tuesday, predicting a Democratic wave. She added of
the prospect Mr. Trump would collaborate, “I don’t think he himself knows
what he is going to do.”



As Mr. Trump spends the final week of a scorched-earth midterm campaign
rallying his base around hot-button immigration issues and depicting
Democrats as a security threat, Ms. Pelosi and her deputies sought to
project a more modest and politically popular agenda on issues ranging from
health care to criminal justice changes. They said they would work to
improve the Affordable Care Act, for example, rather than rushing to
replace it with a single-payer health care plan.



Full article here
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/us/politics/democrats-midterm-elections.html
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com