Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Ferrinus posted:

well, yes, of course. the thing is that only one of those sides is composed even mostly of socialists, let alone socialists with any kind of ongoing organizing commitments or experience. so the side that doesn't is bad and deserves to lose

socialist alternative is small, but as a democratic centralist organization it probably numbers more in aggregate than however many people in DSA are strongly against FTV. are you only counting personalities?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Kshama posted this today. She's right.

https://www.socialistalternative.org/2021/01/14/forcethevote-far-right-attacks-and-a-strategy-for-the-left/

Kshama Sawant posted:

* #ForceTheVote, Far Right Attacks, and a Strategy for the Left *
Last Wednesday’s far right terror on the Capitol Building in DC is a reminder of the urgency to build an organized left in the US. As Socialist Alternative has pointed out, Trump leaving office does not mean that the threat of the far right is neutralized, in fact, far from it. With a Biden administration and Democratic control of both houses of Congress, it is likely the legitimacy of right populist ideas will only grow as the Democratic establishment once more carries out a pro-corporate agenda and fails to resolve the compounded crises facing working people.

Unlike in past decades, there are now a handful of US Congressmembers from the Democratic Party who consider themselves socialists or left-wing, “the Squad.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), the most prominent Squad member, has acted audaciously in important ways that Socialist Alternative has enthusiastically supported. One notable example was her occupation of Nancy Pelosi’s office with young climate activists in the Sunrise Movement. Another was her campaign of exposing the pro-corporate Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Since she was first elected, AOC has shown a willingness to stand up to the Democratic Party establishment. The pressures will greatly increase however in the next two years. With Biden as President and Democratic control of both houses of Congress it will be far harder to blame Republicans for the failure to address the urgent needs of working people. This will be where the rubber meets the road.

For the left, the time for serious discussion and debate on building a credible working-class political alternative to the discredited two-party system is now. We should welcome political debate around the principal issues facing working and young people, even when it becomes sharp as it has around #ForceTheVote, because it can help to clarify for hundreds of thousands of people the type of decisive left leadership this moment calls for.

Early in January, sections of the left, including the Movement for a People’s Party, along with public figures like Briahna Joy Gray, Cornel West, and Jimmy Dore, unleashed a furious debate on the left when they led calls for AOC and the other movement-backed members of the Squad to refuse to vote for corporate Democrat Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House unless she agreed to a debate and a floor vote on Medicare for All. As Speaker, Pelosi has the legal ability to choose which bills to bring up for a floor vote in Congress.

AOC rejected this tactic, tweeting that “The Dem votes aren’t there yet,” and suggesting that #ForceTheVote would be shortsighted and use up political capital over an empty threat without a strategy.

Socialist Alternative and I supported the #ForceTheVote tactic as part of a larger strategy of building a movement-based fightback. In contrast, the leadership of the Democratic Socialists of America joined AOC and the Squad in rejecting it, as did several other organizations and figures on the left.

David Sirota wrote in Jacobin that “only asking for that performative [#ForceTheVote] — rather than also asking for things that might change the structural power dynamic — would be a waste, and yet another instance of progressives reverting to a feckless tradition of prioritizing spectacles rather than the wielding of actual power.”

In their statement rejecting #ForceTheVote, DSA leaders say “there are no shortcuts to liberation.”

Socialist Alternative and I agree it would be a misguided to believe that merely carrying out the #ForceTheVote tactic in isolation would force the corporate representative filled Congress to support Medicare for All. And we need to educate against any such naivete among activists.

We said in our endorsement of #ForceTheVote that we support this tactic as it points in the direction of a fighting approach of using elected office to rally working people, standing in contrast to the dead-end strategy of backroom negotiations. If we want to win reforms like Medicare for All, we need a clear movement-building strategy – an understanding that open conflict with the political establishment is inevitable and necessary if we are to win anything meaningful. Squad Congressmembers forcing a floor vote on Medicare for All, an issue with heightened mass support in the middle of a pandemic ravaging lives, could help act as a galvanizing point to build our movement. We can focus the public eye on this life-or-death demand. We can work within our unions to win support. We can organize our forces to mount public pressure on Congress to concede on this massively popular issue.

** Why Did Sections of the Socialist Left Reject #ForceTheVote **
The key question that flows from the debate is why organizations like the DSA rejected #ForceTheVote, rather than endorse it as part of a movement-building strategy.

For socialists to dismissively refuse to support a loud demand from the left on a key issue with huge working-class support is an abdication of responsibility. Leaders and organizations on the left, especially socialists, have an obligation to seriously engage with the genuine frustration working people feel at progressive politicians for not fighting on their behalf, an obligation that is no less in the context of tactical disagreements.

I do believe, however, it is actually a strawman to argue that most who are advocating #ForceTheVote do not understand the need for a larger strategy. In my view, #ForceTheVote was not an immature call for left Democrats to engage in adventurism with a one-off move. Rather, it was motivated by the desire to see movement-elected Congressional Democrats begin to use their positions to organize against the Pelosi-dominated corporate establishment.

AOC correctly understands the need for conflict with Republicans even when votes may fail, both to expose them and as part of a larger strategy. She articulated exactly this on Tuesday, when she explained the importance of the Trump impeachment vote by saying that “sometimes these votes create real political pressure that forces developments. Sometimes we vote for the historical record – to let future generations know we did everything we could.” The key missing aspect is the willingness to direct the same challenge to the edifice of the Democratic establishment, and corporate stalwarts like Nancy Pelosi.

We’ve seen a similar hesitation around the question of how to fight far right attacks. In the wake of the riot at the Capitol, rather than calling for mass, working-class action – our only weapon against the far right – Squad members have echoed calls from the Democratic establishment for new impeachment hearings. Needless to say, Socialist Alternative supports Trump being impeached or removed from office. But it would be a dire mistake to think that this would be remotely sufficient to demoralize the far right and stem its ominous growth. AOC and the Squad should be calling for mass demonstrations as well as boldly putting forward a pro-worker program (Medicare For All, $2,000 stimulus checks and comprehensive COVID relief funded by taxing Wall Street and the rich, a Green jobs initiative) that can unite the widest sections of the working class.

** A “Movement Building Strategy”**
The DSA and others on the left have, ironically, offered up the need for movements as their reason for refusing to positively support the #ForceTheVote tactic as part of a longer-term fightback by building mass movements. By doing so, they have given cover to the Squad and other Democrats who got elected on progressive promises. Contrary to this, it is the responsibility of leaders on the left to provoke discussion on a serious strategy to win and push the movement forward.

Openly holding elected officials accountable – even when we cannot win a given vote – has to be an essential part of any movement-building strategy! Exposing corporate politicians is important to raising working-class consciousness and laying the ground for future struggles and victories. The Squad’s own rejection of the #ForceTheVote tactic, and the DSA leadership’s support for the Squad’s response is, in fact, tied to the larger and longer-standing question of political lesser evilism. Many DSA members and others on the left, for example, based their refusal to support #ForceTheVote by pointing to the danger that withholding support for Pelosi would allow Republican Kevin McCarthy to take the Speaker seat.

This is really unfortunate, and is a replay of the “lesser evil” politics certain prominent DSA leaders advocated going into the election, and fails to be rooted in a real strategy to successfully build an alternative to the establishment. Socialist Alternative and I have said repeatedly it is a mistake for Squad members to be supporting corporate tools like Nancy Pelosi, who openly opposes Medicare for All and a Green New Deal. And as social media commentator and self-described socialist Ryan Knight said, “Progressives in Congress shouldn’t even be voting for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker in the first place, but to vote for her without demanding any concessions shows a complete lack of courage to stand up to the corrupt Democratic establishment.”

The DSA statement goes on to say: “Speaker Pelosi alone can’t deliver us a floor vote. The Medicare for All bill in the House needs to pass through six Committees’ jurisdiction, and it currently lacks financing language (i.e. how to pay for it), so it’s not a bill that can be voted on yet. This is why getting the bill out of committee has been one of DSA’s priorities. Over the past few years, working with other national and local groups, we’ve succeeded in pressuring chairs to hold the first hearings on Medicare for All in the Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Rules, and Budget committees. These hearings were historic; the first ever on Medicare for All legislation.”

This is a tragically misplaced understanding of how social change happens, not to mention the raising of illusions in entrenched representatives of the billionaire class such as Pelosi. No meaningful victory such as Medicare for All is going to be led by left representatives who are focusing on the technocratic processes of Congressional Committees instead of taking up the opportunities to fight that are staring them in the face.

Socialist Alternative and I don’t agree with holding the movement back by brushing aside the justifiable anger of the left and of young people by telling them they don’t understand how Congressional Committees and “floor votes” work. Rather, we think this anger must be channeled into exposing the Democrats who are failing us and into building movements. The left is headed for a dead end as long as our leaders believe that mastering parliamentary arithmetic is the key to social change.

Over and over, history has shown that it is mass movements which clearly expose the betrayals of politicians and chart an independent course forward that can force the hand of the capitalist class and their representatives. Such movements have had to first shed illusions that the way forward is through the leadership of level-headed, “collaborative,” “policy wonk” politicians and their inside negotiations which will yield the votes to win.

** The Socialist Example in Seattle **
In Seattle, where Socialist Alternative and our movements have elected a revolutionary socialist to City Council three times, we have demonstrated how the seemingly impossible becomes possible when the movement has its own elected, fighting office that fearlessly uses a class struggle approach. We of course work with Democratic politicians on issues where we agree to fight for working people, and always have. But this can never mean basing yourself on insider deals or making peace with the establishment and then trying to force working people to accept marginal changes to avoid conflict. It cannot mean holding back criticism when Democratic politicians sell out working people. Since we first took office, Socialist Alternative and the movements we have helped build and lead have transformed Seattle’s political landscape, winning victories like the $15/hour minimum wage, the Amazon Tax to fund housing and a Green New Deal, and a fleet of renters’ rights victories.

It would have been a complete non-starter for our movements had I decided to eschew open conflict with City Hall Democrats, refused to use my position to relentlessly expose them, and chosen to only take on demands that already had “the votes”. An overwhelming number of our movement’s victories – starting with the $15/hour minimum wage – began with only one reliable vote on the Council (mine), and ultimately passed unanimously or with supermajority votes, under pressure from our fighting Council office and movements.

In her response to the call to #ForceTheVote, AOC also tweeted, “If you want a model on how we can *successfully* secure floor votes on progressive leg, examine how the grassroots JUST successfully forced (and passed!) a $15/hr min wage in the House even over Conservative Dem objections.”

I think that unfortunately, this statement misses the real story of $15/hour. In 2014, Seattle became the first major city to win a $15 minimum wage, leading to victories in dozens of other cities. This was only due to the fighting strategy used by our 15 Now movement and my Council office. Our first term in office started in January that year with a couple of corporate Democratic Councilmembers privately warning me that even though I had rabble-roused my way into office, I was not going to win any minimum wage increase, much less $15/hour, and that City Hall ran on their terms. By June, we had won the unanimous and historic City Council vote. Far from being the result of vote-counting or negotiations by my office, the victory saw the light of day only because we used our Council position to help launch the 15 Now campaign along with progressive labor unions, which overcome not only the vicious opposition of big business and the corporate Democrats, but also the cautious instincts of some labor leaders reluctant to openly clash with the establishment. The 15 Now campaign organized a series of mass conferences, launched “neighborhood action groups”, held a series of marches, and then democratically decided to file a grassroots ballot initiative so that we could take the issue to voters if Democratic City Councilmembers failed to act. All of this was crucial to forcing the hand of big business and the establishment.

Similarly, we won the Amazon Tax last year after our grassroots campaign first defeated the onslaught of big business and Jeff Bezos against our re-election in 2019. The Tax Amazon movement was launched as part of my third-term inauguration, and organized independently of the city’s Democratic politicians (though they were invited to participate), with mass Action Conferences that involved hundreds of activists. Despite fierce big business opposition and repeated ploys by city and state Democrats to derail it, the movement won during the height of the Black Lives Matter street protests, primarily on the basis of a viable ballot initiative threat. As testament to the enormous support among ordinary people, the Tax Amazon ballot initiative gathered 20,000 signatures at the George Floyd protests in 20 days, ultimately tallying up 30,000 signatures.

I would add that we should be sober about where things stand with a federal $15 minimum wage. While it’s important that the legislation is passed in the House, unless a movement is built to put powerful pressure on the Senate, it could remain a symbolic victory. Big business will be loath to allow such a measure to actually go into law by approval in the Senate, as it would represent a major transfer of wealth from big business to low-wage workers. Working-class representatives need to strive at all times to be honest about the forces arrayed against us and not inadvertently paper over the real challenges we face.

Using elected office to win concrete victories for movements is impossible without being willing to openly speak out against politicians who reject progressive measures. Without exposing the betrayals of both outright corporate politicians and, frankly, even those who may be well-meaning in words but who refuse to break from big business and the Democratic leadership in practice. Socialist Alternative supports the genuine courage that has been shown by Squad members like AOC, but our experience in Seattle has demonstrated that working people cannot afford our representatives to choose to only take on a limited or symbolic conflict with the establishment. Most critically, we have to use our elected positions to help build serious movements on the ground, which is the only counterweight to the horrendous pressure of the Democratic establishment. The #ForceTheVote tactic would be one step in exposing the Pelosi-led establishment, by forcing them to take an actual stand on Medicare for All in the midst of an unprecedented health crisis. It is only when establishment politicians are relentlessly exposed, and come to fear exposure, that they support things they otherwise wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole.

Having been in office for over seven years as an independent socialist, I can attest to the real pressure to be “civil” to your “colleagues” on the legislative body. This may be even more palpable if you are a left elected inside the Democratic Party (which is a strong argument for a new party), but it is ever-present and acute even when you are elected as an independent socialist. It has been practically an everyday experience.

There’s no question these pressures are real and the conflict is challenging, but we should be crystal clear about the lessons of our experience – we did not win our victories in Seattle by my office refusing to put Democrats on the spot. We did not raise the political consciousness of our movements by refusing to force them to vote on key issues that exposed the chasm between Democrats’ rhetoric and action. We did not win by refusing to speak out publicly against Democrats who opposed working-class demands, with the idea that I need to be nice to colleagues rather than calling out their betrayals. We did not win through my parliamentary calculations of how many votes I had before I was willing to build movement pressure or provoke a debate on the dais.

We won precisely because of the political clarity of my office that we must base ourselves solely on movements in order to overpower the establishment politicians’ loyalties to big business – which is used to having its way. We won because I refused to exchange my own loyalty and accountability to the working class for having some day-to-day peace inside City Hall, a career path up the political ladder, or the opportunity for the friendship or approval of other Councilmembers.

Changing the balance of forces by activating working people is what wins the “votes.” Integral to our success has been a fighting strategy of street protests and public pressure inside Council Chambers, alongside labor unions and rank and file, community activists, and socialists. It is no surprise that big business, the right wing, and the establishment are infuriated with the success of our movements and the example it provides to working people, and have targeted my office with a recall campaign, after having failed to defeat our re-election even with unprecedented corporate cash.

Last but not least, having my own political organization that stands with me, that is accountable to working people and not big business, and that is democratically organized with rank-and-file membership determining program and strategy together, has been decisive in enabling me to take on the pressure of conflict with the Democratic establishment. In the days after the November election, AOC talked about how her experience with the Democratic establishment left her wondering if she even wanted to be in politics and run for re-election, because of stress from “the lack of support from your own party. It’s your own party thinking you’re the enemy.” Having Socialist Alternative as my organization has been the backbone of both my morale and my ability to build movements that can turn the tables on the Democrats.

** The Task Ahead for the Left **
As part of the #ForceTheVote debate, I have seen some left activists on social media claiming that while Kshama and Socialist Alternative have been able to take on a conflict with the Democratic elite, it’s not reasonable to hold everyone to that standard. Others have argued that since movements not politicians win victories, why focus on putting any pressure on politicians?

In my view, both these positions reflect a fundamental, and even harmful, misunderstanding of what is required for the left to move forward, and of the role of the working class masses in shaping history.

Working people, young people, and the left have a historic opportunity, and urgent necessity, to build movements to win Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and affordable housing by taxing Wall Street and the billionaire class. This will require all leaders of our movements – elected legislative officials, elected union leaders, non-elected movement leaders – to be prepared for a fierce conflict with the ruling class and their political representatives. Accepting the idea that we shouldn’t pressure the socialist and left elected officials we’ve fought to elect plays right into the hands of the Pelosis and Schumers, who welcome anything that ties the hands of our movements.

We have to take on the struggle in the way it is posed to us by the material realities of the system, not as we wish it to be. And as sharp as the fight for substantive reforms will be, it will pale in comparison to the almighty political clash that will occur when the working class readies itself for systemic change, starting with a serious fight to take large corporations into democratic public ownership under the control of workers themselves.

If it were true that only rare members of our movements are capable of summoning the courage to take on this conflict, the history of class struggle would have been utterly dismal rather than what it is — a proud record of revolutionary victories by masses of the oppressed over their oppressors. What is dismal is the record of those who base themselves on backroom negotiations, the “politics of the possible,” and their personal career calculations. AOC needs to fight ferociously against the pressures for her to buckle to this type of politics.

And it would be a mistake to believe this was just important in relation to political office. For the rank-and-file of labor unions, for workplace struggles, and for social movements, holding leaders (elected or otherwise) to high standards of accountability is not an optional position or a purity test, but a life-or-death imperative to have any hope of change. Careerism, reformism, and parliamentary calculus are dead ends. The rank-and-file leadership of the West Virginia teacher strike in 2018 won only because they exposed the insider deal of the higher-up union officials, rejected that deal, and kept on fighting. This must be our map and guide — the path of the class struggle — not the insider calculus of House committees.

Over the next two years, with the Squad holding the numerical balance of power in the House of Representatives, this means they can withhold support for any pro-corporate measures Pelosi tries to advance. It means they can force issues like Medicare for All onto the table.

This presents a huge opening for the development of a fighting left in the US. The Squad, with its two new members Representatives Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, are positioned to be at the forefront of a real fight against the Democratic establishment, if they choose to.

The Squad should announce a comprehensive set of demands they intend to put on the agenda over the next two years and develop a movement strategy to win them. They need to build leverage within the halls of power by helping to call mass demonstrations and direct action to win these demands.

Ultimately, the events of the next two years will clarify for millions the incompatibility of genuine progressive politics with big business politicians like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer. The Squad, Bernie Sanders, and organizations like the DSA need to draw this to its logical conclusion and begin building a new, working-class political party independent of the Democrats. If they do not take this step, it will hamstring our ability to fight for the reforms working people desperately need. This will not only leave millions of working people trapped in the thoroughly pro-corporate Democratic Party, but also further fuel the growth of the far right.

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Ferrinus posted:

well ironically i thought she was during the bernie campaign but i think the aftermath of the bernie campaign, BJG's ignominious final trajectory included, has shown that the sanders campaign has largely failed to deliver one of the things we were all hoping for it to deliver, which was an enduring organizing infrastructure usable for future serious campaigns. presumably the DSA enjoyed some kind of boost in numbers and internal experience from participating in the campaign, and of course there's whatever shift in public opinion may or may not exist, but no new structure has materialized. instead all that remains are some comms people wandering around in search of audiences


i don't remember that at all. it seems like an outrageous lie, since obviously the huge majority of everyone in any organized socialist org preferred bernie sanders to elizabeth warren (or else dismissed them both as imperialist running dogs)


oh i think the chances of it passing as proposed are basically nil, but it could amount to a bigger relief check or similar


who are you quoting?


i disagree that that's not what you're saying. if sanders and the DSA's m4a campaign have revealed themselves to be capitalist roaders or whatever by attempting, in this moment, to add temporary universal health care to a corona relief bill instead of permanent universal health care to a corona relief bill, then what distinguishes a real, serious proponent of m4a from some kind of comprador judas goat must be the intensity of their rhetoric and the scope of their demands. why NOT demand that full m4a be added as an asterisk to the $2000 checks? well it must be undue deference to the democrats and insufficient revolutionary spirit. sanders certainly never presented himself as an actual political alternative by running for president or something like that. why aren't you calling for, instead of m4a, full nationalization of the health system? oh, well, historical contingency, practical matters, public feeling...

it’s hosed up how you accuse others of disingenuity and make up imaginary scenarios in which you own them with logic

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Yinlock posted:

ferrinus it's ok to be wrong about things

i'm wrong about things all the time and have survived

have you tried writing more words? if you make your post long enough you get the prize.

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Doc Hawkins posted:

We were invited to apply to join the Sao Paulo Forum. The leftist parties of the americas like us. :shrug:

Sounds perfect for DSA

quote:

During the early 1990s, the FSP was seen by some as expressing the emergence of a new Latin American leftist paradigm: non-authoritarian, de-militarized and grassroots-friendly.[4] As others have noted, however, there is a marked contradiction between the fiery and quasi-revolutionary rhetoric about "socialism of the 21st century" indulged in sometimes by many FSP's leaders, and the plain fact that the positions of power held by such leaders depend, on most cases, on their holding positions in governments which have emerged through the electoral road.[5] In a statement made in 2008 in Lima, before a gathering of Peruvian businessmen, however, Brazil's President Lula would declare, approvingly, that the FSP had "educated" the Left in the understanding of the existence of possibilities of running for elections and gaining power through the democratic way - a declaration that prompted a comment from AFP, reproduced at the Rede Globo site, to the effect that the hallmark of FSP's activities had been its "very moderate" character.[6]

Nevertheless, almost since its inception, the FSP has been the target of criticism from the right in the United States and Latin America, especially in Brazil, describing it as an organization promoting terrorism and/or a revival of communism,[7] something regarded even by mainstream conservatives as unfounded and "exaggerated to say the least".[8] The allegedly subversive character of the Foro's activities, however, was revived during the 2010 Brazilian presidential election campaign, as the vice-presidential candidate in the José Serra ticket, Antônio Pedro de Siqueira Indio da Costa, denounced repeatedly the supposed connection, by way of the Foro, between the Brazilian Workers' Party and the FARC.[9] Alternatively, the Foro is seen also as more than a simple regular gathering, in that policies that had been advised by it came to be actively implemented later - such as the strengthening of Mercosul, or the setting up of Unasur - but that the Foro was better understood as a "brainstorming organization", a "think-tank for politicians".[10]

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

having been a member of both sa and dsa, and now only dsa, i’m pretty sure dsa is worse both as an organization and ideologically and it’s an embarrassment to socialists anywhere.

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

fermun posted:

DSA did a poll of members in the weeks leading up to the convention and did find that while DSA is absurdly white, it is actually very representative of the nation in terms of income breakdown.
https://twitter.com/kittyflandre/status/1424552873925353477

if you believe the poll, sure

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

CaptainACAB posted:

It's pretty hard for the DSA to enforce any discipline among their members when their structure is built up specifically to avoid that because they are what Lenin called artesinal socialists.

The DSA has done a great job modeling themselves after what Lenin said in What is to be done, it's just that they modelled themselves off the party Lenin spends half the book criticizing.

“Members can be expelled if they are found to be in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization or if they consistently engage in undemocratic, disruptive behavior or if they are under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization.”

the only principle or policy explicitly stated as a reason for expulsion is to have ever been a member of an organization that could get anything done. genocide isn’t in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of DSA though.

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

isn’t Socialist Alternative an organization which opposes police abolition? perhaps Sawant should be purged right alongside Bowman and this Warren character

where do you get that idea? it’s not something I’ve ever heard.

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

don’t pop the cork quite yet, champagne socialists. there’s still people who hosed up their own dang signatures. but maybe get the flutes out

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019


you’re right, I haven’t followed very closely. in light of how things have played out, do you think they might be right and that there are fish that are actually possible to fry when most people don’t support total abolition?

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

a DSA guy who owns

:thunk:

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

jarofpiss posted:

not going to read this article but "cosplay castro" and "immigrand landlord of color" made me lol equally

it’s really up there with petit-fours posadists and grappa guerillas

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Lady Militant posted:

maybe its a west coast thing but iv never encountered a DSA person in a "polycule"

there can be no surer way to tell you’re in one. get tested asap

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019


:lmao:

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

socialist international seems really silly. lol at having CHP (Republican People's Party of Turkey, founded by ataturk) as a member. what’s the purpose of the organization?

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

danny fetonte died :rip:

Rest in power comrade ✊

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

lol https://twitter.com/hondawang/status/1598557292164796416

https://twitter.com/hondawang/status/1598557295528448000

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

croup coughfield posted:

still too many people trying to use it for clout/career advancement, dumb as it may seem

much like Communism, this works in the real world

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

we’re going to turn this Saturday morning basketball club into a soccer club by showing up with cleats and kicking the ball into the hoop! also there were only 4 a team, so you’re just 8 people playing soccer in the mat unsuitable and impractical field there is.

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

there are a lot of tech folx in DSA. let’s get Medicare for AI off the ground!

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Ace of Baes posted:

DSA Goons by State

WA - HorseRenoir
WA - GodFish
WA - Doorknob Slobber

Didn’t know DSA was so based

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

DSA member Kshama Sawant is starting a podcast or YouTube channel or some poo poo

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

fermun posted:

as a reminder, you can't be a communist alone, so even as dysfunctional as dsa is, if youre not in an org, you're a lib.

it doesn't have to be dsa, though thats the only org available in a lot of places, but join salt or cpusa or whatever

socialist alternative makes you pay money to support anticommunist British guys in Hong Kong

mawarannahr has issued a correction as of 10:03 on Jan 16, 2024

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Ytlaya posted:

I was at least expecting the $30k/month person to be "king of the DSA" or something instead of a "harassment and grievance officer."

How does that even happen?

this is significantly more money than Kathy Hochul's and Gavin Newsom's salaries. is there really not a typo involved? lmao

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

DaysBefore posted:

30k a month for the socdem HR person. Badass
possibly the highest salaried HR official in the entire world

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Second Hand Meat Mouth posted:

goon in the seattle lan thread was hyping his cool org the other day too
I do not think they send money to British expats fwiw, they seem pretty harmless and they show up to stuff in their small numbers

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Second Hand Meat Mouth posted:

sinophobia is not harmless op
i guess you're right. they had weekly meetings on campus when i was at school and I would attend sometimes. they rarely brought it up when i was there (probably cause it would turn people off/they were afraid of me)

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019


psl has no games members in Seattle

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Grilled Beef posted:

the PR department has a staff of 4. The only time I ever see DSA in the news is after a spectacular fuckup or Twitter fight. so what the gently caress are those 4 people doing?

well, at least one of us is posting here ✋🫰

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

being a staff ik is probably way more demanding than being the grievance officer

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Weka posted:

It's a small idpol niggle (but what better thread for that) but I'm pretty sick of seeing "South African" as a synonym for "white South African"
bruh

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019


dead tweet

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

r&r is a faction that broke with socialist alternative to join dsa iirc. but not cause they couldn't hate cuba and china there.

mawarannahr has issued a correction as of 16:16 on Apr 19, 2024

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Al! posted:

shouldnt the entire r&r caucus been kicked out for entryism then?
once they broke off from SA I don't think they were members of a "self-defined democratic-centralist organization" anymore so...

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

nice shoes... did you get them at the clown locker?

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

fermun posted:

https://twitter.com/mangosocialism/status/1781504633304756249
it seems that the dsa forum mods are authoritarians and thus maria can not support meetings on the forums.
there's a pic of her campaigning for Andrew Gillum there.😎

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

rudecyrus posted:

i hate trots bc they're always telling me to read their newsletter. i ain't got time for that poo poo, leave me alone

you're missing out

50 years of CWI/ISA: Our struggle for a fighting revolutionary Marxist International - China Worker

chinaworker.info - Sun, 21 Apr 2024 posted:

When the CWI, the Committee for a Workers International, was formed in the upstairs of the Mother Red Cap pub (an old pub said to have been frequented by Karl Marx, rebuilt in the 1980s and ironically renamed World’s End) in London on 20-21 April 1974, exactly 50 years ago, the ambition was to sow the seeds of a new, revolutionary workers’ international that could challenge capitalism on a global scale in the foreseeable future.

This article focuses on the ideas and conditions that motivated the formation of the CWI and are still worth building on today.

Those of us who participated wanted to reconnect with the best theoretical and political legacy of the First, Second and Third Internationals since Marx and Engels and the Russian October Revolution. Likewise with Trotsky’s struggle for a new Fourth International after the Russian Revolution degenerated completely and the Stalinist Moscow-controlled Third International also failed to build powerful united fronts that could have stopped Hitler’s rise to power and won the Spanish Revolution.

The formation of the CWI meant a theoretical confrontation with the other groupings that also saw themselves as Trotskyists but were completely wrong in their uncritical idolisation of the charismatic leaders of the colonial revolution, their lack of faith in the working class and their view of students and intellectuals as the new avant-garde.

Behind the launch was above all the group around the Militant newspaper in the British Labour Party, whose leading theoretician Ted Grant had been an active Trotskyist since the 1930s and whose young members in 1970 had won a majority in the LPYS, the British Labour Party’s then small but rapidly growing youth league.

This also opened up new opportunities for contacts with young Marxists and individuals from other countries, who were usually active in the youth organisations of various social democratic parties.

Swedish comrades have previously described how we, who published the first issue of the Marxist paper Offensiv in September 1973, came into contact with two British visitors from the LPYS at the 1972 SSU (social democratic youth league) congress, where heated debates took place between the right wing leadership and critics from the left.

At the founding meeting of the CWI in London, I was one of 46 participants from 12 countries. I represented a small group in the north of Sweden, who, after intensive discussions with comrades from Militant, had clicked with the ideas. The fact that our then only stencilled magazine Offensiv was met from the start with positive reactions among radical SSU clubs throughout the country, locally even at the grassroots level of the Social Democratic Party, also contributed strongly to us being on board. The background was similar among other participants from Ireland, Germany and other European countries.

Even before the formation of the CWI, we were all strongly influenced by the radical winds that blew across the world after the revolutionary wars of liberation in China, Cuba and a number of other colonial and semi-colonial countries, the black civil rights movement in the US, the resistance to the Vietnam War and the new Palestinian resistance. The most important impression was made by the French May Revolution of 1968, which was followed by massive labour strikes throughout Europe. In Eastern Europe, too, the Stalinist regimes were shaken by the Czechoslovakian Prague Spring in 1968 and labour strikes in Poland in 1970 and 1976 demanding democratic freedoms, not capitalism.

Both internally within the social democratic left and externally, the debate at this time was heated about the path to socialism through reform or revolution, as well as against Maoism, which dominated the Vietnam movement and the new left’s sectarianism towards the labour movement.

The CWI was a child of 1968 at a time when much of the world seemed to be tilting towards some form of socialism.

Just four days after the formation of the CWI, young officers also overthrew the military dictatorship that had ruled Portugal since 1926 and, three months later, the ten-year military junta in Greece also fell. In England, where the meeting was held, the right-wing Tory government had just fallen after an election, following a massive strike wave and a victorious miners’ strike in which it openly raised the question of which class should “run the country”.

At the same time, the murderous September 1973 coup in Chile against the left-wing government of Salvador Allende provided new and strong arguments for the need for revolutionary and internationally organised parties, which would dare to spearhead revolutionary solutions when capitalist sabotage would inevitably set in against any socialist challenge.

But it was through contacts with the British Militant group that both we and a lot of young socialists in other countries were able to find the Trotskyist classics and be broadly convinced that their interpretation of post-war developments and tactical orientation was more correct than that of other left groups, including those also calling themselves Trotskyists we had come into contact with, such as the French Trotskyist Pierre Frank.

The central conclusions were the realisation that without international perspectives, programmes and policies it is impossible to change society and that, as Marx and Engels already explained, it is the organised working class which, because of its role in production and thus the class struggle, can rally all the oppressed behind it, defeat capitalism and lead the way to a democratically planned, socialist democracy.

Read more in: Programme of the International (1970), by Ted Grant available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1970/05/progint.htm

The nodes of the CWI’s red thread began with the theoretical contributions of Marx and Engels and the pioneering socialist period of the labour movement, before the outbreak of the First World War. This saw the majority of social democratic leaders reneging on their promises to oppose the war by all means by instead rallying behind the governments of their own countries. This led on to support for the Russian October Revolution that shook the world and marked the beginning of the end of the world war, as well as to the founding of the Communist International guided by Lenin and Trotsky during its first four congresses. This was the period before it degenerated, after the defeat of the German revolution and Lenin’s death, into a foreign policy tool of the bureaucratic counter-revolution in Russia. We then wanted to tie the thread to the Trotsky-led left opposition to Stalinism and the complete degeneration of the Third International, embodied in the attempt in the 1930s to form a new, fourth Marxist International.

The formation of the CWI also represented a statement of Ted Grant’s and Militant’s views on the main contentious issues that had divided the Trotskyists in the post-war period.

A new revolutionary upsurge also came after WW2 in Europe, but was diverted in a way that Trotsky had not anticipated. It was first necessary to realise how Hitler’s bestial attack on the Soviet Union meant that the war against Nazi Germany came to the top of the agenda, after which the Red Army’s spectacular victory both weakened the Western capitalist powers and strengthened Stalinism. This was firstly, by creating a series of new states in the countries occupied by the Red Army, modelled on Stalin’s Soviet Union, while at the same time Mao’s Red Peasant Army was about to defeat the Kuomintang in China.

The prestige of the Stalinists had also been enhanced by the fact that, after initially defending the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin’s Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, they eventually did a political u-turn after Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union and played a leading role in the Western resistance movements against the German occupation and Mussolini’s Italian fascists. But the influence of the victory over Hitler’s Germany was used after the war to divert and contain, in tacit agreement with the Western powers, the revolutionary wave in the West that Moscow, without troops on the ground, could not control as it did in Eastern Europe.

Ted Grant also realised much earlier than others that the shaken capitalists after the war would be forced to lean on social democracy and allow a series of social reforms that strengthened it. This was a kind of counter-revolution in bourgeois democratic forms, instead of relying on military dictatorships, repression and Bonapartist states, as other Trotskyists believed. This also paved the way for a new capitalist economic upswing, which became a dominant trend from 1950 until the early 1970s.

Other debates concerned the class nature of the new regimes in Eastern Europe. Capitalism was abolished, but instead of a genuine working class revolutionary overturn as in Russia in 1917, these were new deformed workers’ states. From the start they were under the rule of a bureaucratic dictatorship with bureaucratic top-down state-owned industries on the same model as in Russia. But these were not degenerated workers’ states as was the case in the USSR because they were never democratic. Nor were they state capitalist, as some so-called Trotskyist groups believed.

Earlier than most, while Mao was still talking about 50 years of capitalism, Ted Grant had also predicted that under the new global power relations, Mao’s regime would be forced to establish a proletarian Bonapartist and deformed regime of the same character as Moscow.

The CWI also adopted the definition of several regimes established in the South after colonial wars of liberation or coups d’état in the former colonial countries as proletarian Bonapartist, having nationalised their economies on the model of Moscow. In a new albeit deformed way, this confirmed Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution, which here meant that national liberation in some poor countries with a weak domestic bourgeoisie could not hold out against economic neo-colonialism without nationalising and bureaucratically planning the economy. In a new situation where imperialism was weakened while the revolution in the developed countries was delayed, deformed workers’ states still existed as models for these countries’ revolutionary intellectuals and radical officers, in societies where the working class was numerically very small.

Therefore, as in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, political revolutions would be necessary in the future to establish workers’ democracies also in those countries where rural-based guerrilla movements such as in Cuba, Vietnam and many other cases in Asia and Africa. To succeed in poor countries these nascent workers’ states would require the support of the coming social revolution in the West or the political revolution in the East.

It was a question that other Trotskyists opportunistically denied or ducked. The American SWP (Socialist Workers Party), which had joined the USFI (United Secretariat of the Fourth International) in 1963, became even more than others an uncritical cheerleader for Cuba, and later for the Sandinista half-revolution in Nicaragua.

USFI leaders like the Belgian Ernest Mandel, the Italian Livio Maitan and the Frenchman Pierre Frank also had great illusions about Mao’s China and “cultural revolution”. They had compromised in 1965 with a more critical SWP in China’s case to call for an ‘anti-bureaucratic movement’ in China, while rejecting the call for a political revolution. The furthest along in Maoist illusions was Maitan, who actively contributed to the dissemination of Maoist literature and lost a large proportion of the USFI’s Italian youth to Maoism.

The uncritical applause for the leaders of the colonial revolutions went hand in hand with a glorification of guerrilla warfare that sharply departed from the Marxist view of the peasants’ role in the Russian Revolution. The CWI also recalled Trotsky’s warning to China’s revolutionaries when he declared in 1932 that: “It is one thing when the Communist party, firmly leaning upon the flower of the urban, proletariat, strives through the workers to lead the peasant war. It is an altogether different thing when a few thousand or even tens of thousands revolutionists assume the leadership of the peasant war [… ] without having serious support from the proletariat. Then the danger is high that the peasant army, when it takes the cities, may soon be turned against the struggle of the working class.”

The CWI was even more strident in its criticism of the guerrilla romanticism that, particularly in Latin America, led to urban guerrillaism by heroic small groups in armed struggle and attacks with bombs and guns. Thousands of young people were lost in the resulting impasse in Argentina, Uruguay and other Latin American countries, while even in Europe the USFI gave uncritical support to the armed struggle of Basque separatists and the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland. While the CWI strongly denounced this kind of individual terrorism. Our comrades in Northern Ireland also gave their all in the struggle for labour unity between Protestant and Catholic workers and a common class struggle which, in a future socialist federation, could also resolve the national question with guarantees of security and self-determination for all communities.

Having myself visited Palestinian refugee camps and organizations before contact with Militant, I was in direct agreement with the British comrades’ view that instead of small guerrilla groups’ pin-pricks from outside, which only strengthened the Israeli state, we must advocate a mass struggle both inside Israel and in its occupied territories (along the lines of the first intifada that followed). This pointed to the necessity of joint struggle by Palestinians and Israelis in favour of a socialist two-state solution in an ever closer federation.

Other points crucial to our political orientation concerned the economic and political crisis perspectives of the developed capitalist countries, where we agreed with the British pioneers that by the 1970s the long post-war upswing of capitalism had come to an end, which would inevitably undermine reformism, lead to an escalation of class struggle and bring about a radicalisation of the workers. And, as before, they would first turn to their traditional trade unions and labour parties for solutions.

Since Trotsky’s day, most Trotskyist groups, purged from the Stalinized communist parties, had tried to find ways out of their isolation by going in and finding new radicalised layers in the other social democratic and workers’ parties or breakaways. This tactical approach was called entrism. During the long post-war upsurge, however, this often degenerated to the point where some of the Trotskyists hid their own programme and adapted to the reformist ideas of these parties with “deep entrism”.

It was a tactic that by the end of the 1960s had already been abandoned by most of those who called themselves Trotskyists in favour of an orientation to the colonial liberation struggle and the new radical currents among students and intellectuals.

Not so the Marxist tendency around the Militant in Britain. Without denying the importance of student and middle-class radicalisation, the formation of the CWI in 1974 meant a focus on getting in touch with the new radicalisation that had become apparent in the workplace, in the trade unions, among the rank and file of social democracy and, not least, in the youth wings of social democracy, as confirmed by rapidly growing support for our ideas.

It was an orientation everywhere possible that quickly led to contacts and new groups, eventually in 35 countries on all continents. Although we did not speak publicly about the CWI for a long time (this would be grounds for expulsion from social democracy), we were always maximally open about our theoretical foundations, economic and political perspectives, always starting with international perspectives and a shared international analysis and program.

The CWI, of course, like Trotsky in his day, also warned of a period of “revolution and counter-revolution” in which the crisis of humanity could be boiled down to a crisis of proletarian leadership. But we hoped that this would somehow be overcome in a race between the social revolution against capitalism in the West and the political revolution against Stalinism in the East. As after the First World War, we looked forward to new revolutionary mass parties sooner or later emerging from the break-up of large minorities or perhaps even majorities of the old social democratic parties and their youth organisations.

This orientation to the traditional labour parties was maintained by the CWI in those countries where they existed into the early 1990s, even from outside in countries such as Spain and Sweden where we were met very early on with expulsions to block our ability to win significant minorities.

In Greece, we orientated ourselves to the new socialist party Pasok, which we predicted would be formed before it even existed. In South Africa, the CWI orientated itself in a similar way as a Marxist tendency in the ANC; in Sri Lanka, we won over most of the active members of the former mass Trotskyist Lanka Sama Samaja Party. In countries like the US and Nigeria, we campaigned among trade unionists for a new labour party that had never existed in these countries.

The CWI was most successful in Britain where Militant, with its majority in the LPYS and, until the mid-1980s, a strong left reformist wing around Tony Benn, was so successful that a book by Michael Crick called our comrades the fifth strongest party in the country. Militant had three of Labour’s MPs, majority support in Liverpool, strong positions in several unions and at its peak,8,000 members.

Militant also led a series of epic campaigns, such as Liverpool City Council’s two rounds of battles against Thatcher’s cuts to local government funding, massive support for the great miners’ strike of the 1980s, and the victorious mass non-payment campaign against the attempt to introduce a Poll Tax that spelled the beginning of the end for Margaret Thatcher.

The objective conditions for this orientation changed with the historical collapse of the Stalinist states and the capitulation of social democracy everywhere to capitalism’s demands for neoliberal deregulation, and the destruction of welfare and progressive social reforms.

The Social Democrats and labour parties thus steadily lost most of their character as bourgeois reform parties with a mass base of workers who identified them as “their party”. Increasingly, they became no different fundamentally from other capitalist parties.

More and more people today realise that capitalism’s frightening wars, military arms race, environmental and climate threats are moving closer and closer to tipping points that can actually destroy all human civilisation. Nevertheless, the collapse of Stalinism together with the loss of both a reformist workers’ movement and significant revolutionary alternatives still means that confidence is lower than ever in modern times in both what a functioning socialist alternative to capitalism should look like and have the power to be implemented.

We can no longer, like Trotsky in the 1930s or the CWI in the past, reduce the crisis of humanity to a crisis of leadership for the labour movement. Today’s crisis extends further and encompasses the need for basic working class organisations to be rebuilt, created through struggles, and not only to struggle against bad leadership. This means the Marxists today face a two-fold task: to be the most energetic fighters to launch and help organize mass struggles, including broad initiatives and left electoral challenges where appropriate, while at the same time fighting within these mass struggles and initiatives for the most advanced layers to join us in building a revolutionary socialist alternative.

It is a difficult situation that has not only created several splits in the CWI but also weakened other parts of the socialist left everywhere. In 2019, CWI’s members and sections were confronted with a crisis when a minority around our former leadership chose to split away, having become politically disorientated and increasingly bureaucratic. This was when CWI changed its name to ISA (International Socialist Alternative). However, the more complicated the task has become, the more important it is to defend and build a global Marxist movement capable of using the dialectical materialism developed by Marx and Engels to constantly re-analyse what is happening in all parts of the world, not least in Asia and the South where the industrial working class is today most numerous.

It is still true that it is the working class, increasingly organised in the future, that must support a global democratic socialism, now more than ever with a key role for the many women in schools, health care and other sectors. This is posed in a more threatening race against time as capitalism and imperialism threaten the planet’s survival. At the same time, protest movements against war and environmental degradation, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, racism and oppression of various forms are taking place everywhere, all of which must eventually be captured and channelled by a historically conscious world socialist party at the head of a worker-led mass movement of movements.

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Ferrinus posted:

the cpc allied with the kmt on two separate occasions, the second time after a disastrous betrayal, and the result was that they liberated china from the foreign invaders and domestic capitalists both. this probably explains why mao praised stalin for his contributions to socialism and the cpc upholds stalin to this day

this was being discussed in GiP recently.

Orwell is evergreen :smug:

quote:

quote:

Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which, it is felt, ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied.[6] In 1927 Chiang Kai-Shek boiled hundreds of Communists alive, and yet within ten years he had become one of the heroes of the Left. The re-alignment of world politics had brought him into the anti-Fascist camp, and so it was felt that the boiling of the Communists ‘didn’t count’, or perhaps had not happened.
The specific example of revisionism he uses to illustrate the point has since been revised into the memory hole, incredible

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

mawarannahr
May 21, 2019

Ytlaya posted:

I mean yeah, that's basically my point, I didn't mean to imply there was anything surprising about it.

I have to give the person who gave me this avatar credit that it's the only time I've felt annoyed enough at an avatar purchase to want to change it despite having avatars turned off.

I'm still not going to do it, but I can't say I'm a fan of having Mr. Beast next to all my posts.
one cannot help but picture mr beast is typing all your posts

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply