Socialist Strategy
A bit of online research of the etymology of the word radical tells us that it comes "from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root". A radical, in other words, is someone who seeks to get to the root of a problem. Unfortunately, the word radical has acquired a pejorative meaning in mainstream American politics, and it has consequently become associated with any sort of extremism, of the right or left. Thus Democratic Party politicians can say with a straight face that a Bush judicial nominee comes from the "radical right", as if there were such a thing. In fact, the word radical, in its origins, refers to a leftist ideology. Extremists on the right may be reactionaries, but they are certainly not radicals. Thus certain terms that liberal politicians like to use, like "the radical right", are contradictions in terms.
Radicalism, in fact, represents a completely different strand of political thought from liberal reformism. Radicalism and liberalism represent contrasting approaches to solving society's problems. While liberals and radicals may agree on some of the problems that they think need solving, their solutions are quite different. Liberals seek reform. Radicals understand that the problems that they see are systemic, and require more than merely patching the system with reforms. The system must be pulled up by its roots and replaced with something better.
The "something better" that we are necessarily referring to is socialism. Socialism is, by definition, a radical ideology. It understands that the problems that we see in society are due to the governing economic and political system, which it argues much be replaced with a radically new social order. It does not accept the legitimacy of a system in which profit is placed before human needs; instead, it offers a radical new vision in which people's organizations will democratically manage society's resources, where the economy is socially managed, where the means of production is in the hands of the working class. This is in contrast to liberals, who continue to believe in the efficacy of the capitalist system and the government system that sustains it; liberals, unlike socialists, believe the irrationalities and injustices of capitalism can be fixed with reforms that will allow the market system to continue. In fact, many liberals, unlike socialists, would like to see more competition in the marketplace, for example supporting greater antitrust enforcement as one of the tools for dealing with corporate abuse. Socialists reject this sort of pro-market liberalism out of hand.
In practical terms, modern liberalism in the United States has regressed considerably in recent years. Liberalism has been on the decline politically, and its ability to deliver on its promises seems more remote than ever . Not only has it retreated politically in the face of conservatism, but its promises of economic justice ring hollow in the face of the market pressures of globalization. Because the grassroots of liberalism has steadfastly maintained its allegiance to the Democratic Party, it has become caught in a spiral of increasing retrenchment. As the Democratic Party continues to move rightward, its liberal supporters, trapped by their own lesser-evilism, end up supporting and even contributing to a continuing rightward drift in American politics. Liberalism is, for all intents and purposes, dead.
Liberalism has always been as much a reactive force as a proactive ideology. The New Deal emerged out of the depths of the Great Depression, at a time when Communists and Socialists were winning new converts at the ballot box. Capitalism feared for its life, and needed something to rescue it. The mission of New Deal liberalism was to save capitalism, not only from itself, but from the radical left. Ever since then, liberals have proudly proclaimed that the New Deal saved capitalism from both menaces. The threat to liberalism from the left was something that liberalism indeed made a point of addressing. When Hubert Humphrey, who became known as one of American's preeminent liberals, purged radicals from the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, he made it clear where he stood with respect to the radical left. Liberalism did not view the radical left as its natural ally, but rather as an enemy force, to be purged and stamped out if necessary. This hostility to the radical left is a Democratic Party tradition that goes all the way back to the Red Scare of 1917, which took place under the auspices of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
Winning Converts
If socialism is ever going to become successful at achieving the kind of radical change that it seeks, it will have to win over converts. An obvious target for proselytizing are liberals. Socialists certainly share with liberals many of the same concerns. Socialists and liberals understand and want to address many of the problems that exist in society--poverty, economic inequality, racial injustice, and sexism. If socialists can point out to liberals that their legitimate concerns can only be addressed successfully by socialism, then there is hope for winning them over to socialism.
However--and this is a key point--the only way this is possible is by being clear on the fundamental differences that exist between the radical vision of socialism and the reformist vision of liberalism.
Socialists and liberals can and must serve as allies on specific issues of mutual concern. These alliances can be valuable, both as a means of winning enough support to achieve various aims, but only through such contacts can socialists proselytize liberals. But these ad hoc alliances should always be done with clear boundaries in place. Socialists must always make clear that these alliances are issues-based, and do not represent ideological unity.
Obviously, proselytizing is not effective if socialists denounce grassroots liberals out of hand. Tactically speaking, socialists have to engage liberals in a dialogue, rather than denouncing them for their views. But this dialogue always takes place with a full understanding that the goal is to encourage liberals to re-examine their ideology and to consider ideological change. It also means recognizing that while grassroots liberals are well-intentioned, the party that they unfortunately and mistakenly support--the Democratic Party--is fundamentally insidious in nature. We thus distinguish between grassroots activists on the one hand, and the powerful political machinery of the capitalist duopoly on the other.
Political Parties
It is important not to confuse tactical and ideological issues. Liberals are finding themselves increasingly disconnected from the Democratic Party, to which they continue to show their allegiance. An example of this can be found in the 2004 elections, when the vast majority of liberals opposed the Iraq War, and they supported and largely voted for John Kerry, who ran a prowar campaign. Liberals are caught in a bind. Increasingly, they feel frustrated that the leaders of their party--John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and others--have absented themselves from the antiwar and other progressive movements.
It is one thing to point out to liberals what is wrong with their party. But this is merely a tactical, rather than an ideological argument. To convince a liberal that the Democratic Party does not serve the interests of liberalism is not to convince them to abandon liberalism in favor of radicalism. Telling someone to switch tactics does not have anything to do with getting them to change their ideology. A tactical argument such as this will not convert directly anyone to socialism. It is important to go further than merely show liberals that the Democratic Party is a failure as a progressive force. It is important to show them why this is--why the Democratic Party, as an engine of capitalist interests, cannot serve the goal of social justice.
Some liberals naively hope to "reform" the Democratic Party. The Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) is an example of just such a movement. While this effort is almost certainly doomed to failure, it is not enough to merely point out that progressivism has no home in the Democratic Party. At best, this might only convince liberals to leave the Democratic Party in favor of the Green Party, which is more consistently progressive than the Democrats. It will not in and of itself convince them to support socialism. In any case, given the strongly pro-Democratic Party current that currently exists within the Green Party, this now makes less and less sense for any liberal hanger-on who might consider abandoning the Democrats in favor of a more "progressive" alternative.
Where does the Socialist Party fit in all of this? There has been much debate within the party over the question of how to relate to the Democratic Part. Some members on the right wing of the party have formed the First and Rose Tendency (FaRT), which presents in its manifesto the goal of establishing formal contacts with other left wing groups, both internationally and within the United States. Thus this tendency seems to be organized around the very issue of establishing a dialogue with others, including the liberal left.
Yet the devil is in the details. One rather curious statement of this manifesto is the following:
Further confusing the matter, the manifesto also seems to pull its punches with respect to the Democratic Party. The manifesto at first calls for an alternative to both parties of the duopoly, but to quite different degrees. Although it condemns the Republican Party outright, its criticism of the Democrats is much milder, merely saying that the "current leadership of the Democratics runs far short of what we would like to see." By making a point of identifying the "current" leadership as the problem, it is possible to infer that a possible "future" leadership would not run short of expectations, thus undermining the very goal of convincing Democratic Party grassroots activists to abandon their party. The PDA, which seeks to reform the Democratic Party, would also agree that the "current leadership" falls short of what they would like to see. Thus this manifesto hardly offers a convincing argument for abandoning the Democratic Party. (This ambivalence towards the Democratic Party may be reflected by the fact that at least some of the signers of that manifesto have supported Democratic Party candidates themselves.)
Naturally, it is important for Socialists to ally themselves with liberals on issues of specific mutual interest. Denouncing or attacking grassroots activists for supporting the Democratic Party makes no sense whatsoever. You don't proselytize by antagonizing. FaRT, in seeking to promote contacts with the liberal and progressive left, rightfully stresses this point, but in reality, it isn't clear who on socialist left advocates attacking progressive grassroots activists in that way. Socialists acknowledge the sincerity of the grassroots of the liberal left, but a serious problem lies with the politicians who make up the elite machinery of the Democratic Party. The idea that there is such a thing as a "good Democrat" among the politicians of that party is a myth that many of FaRT seem to adhere to. The fact is that even Dennis Kucinich, whose antiwar views were shut out of the Democratic Party platform process in 2004, supported John Kerry. Politicians of that Party have signed on to the whole political process; they must, necessarily, support the party apparatus of which they are a part, lest they commit political suicide. Dennis Kucinich may be a progressive, but he is still part of a party apparatus that feeds him. He knows better than to pull his own feeding tube. And his loyalty to his party means that he will willingly attack alternative party movements, such as the Greens, whose votes he nevertheless will gladly take. Peter Camejo discussed this in his Avocado Declaration.
Socialism will require a party-based opposition to the ruling capitalist duopoly. The party or parties who will be involved in this process are not clear at this time, but the Socialist Party USA can play an important role in this process of developing just such an opposition which stands outside of and opposed to the Democratic Party, which is an enemy party that supports corporate interests. Socialists must be clear about their relationship with liberals. Socialists must not blur the distinction between their radicalism and the reformism of liberal thinking. These are different ideologies, and liberals can only be won over to socialism by ideological change. They must thus understand that their role is not merely to convince liberals of some sort of tactical change, but of an ideological one as well. This means that socialists must not shy away from or obfuscate the ideological differences between themselves and liberals. This in turn means not shunning the importance of spreading the word to them about the great philosophical questions involving the means of production and the role that profits play in capitalist society. Socialists must woo liberals to socialism with polite persuasion as we ally with them on specific issues, while at the same time we point out to them the corruption of the Democratic Party apparatus.
This will be neither an easy nor a short process. But if it is ever to succeed, socialists must be clear on these important strategic considerations.
Radicalism, in fact, represents a completely different strand of political thought from liberal reformism. Radicalism and liberalism represent contrasting approaches to solving society's problems. While liberals and radicals may agree on some of the problems that they think need solving, their solutions are quite different. Liberals seek reform. Radicals understand that the problems that they see are systemic, and require more than merely patching the system with reforms. The system must be pulled up by its roots and replaced with something better.
The "something better" that we are necessarily referring to is socialism. Socialism is, by definition, a radical ideology. It understands that the problems that we see in society are due to the governing economic and political system, which it argues much be replaced with a radically new social order. It does not accept the legitimacy of a system in which profit is placed before human needs; instead, it offers a radical new vision in which people's organizations will democratically manage society's resources, where the economy is socially managed, where the means of production is in the hands of the working class. This is in contrast to liberals, who continue to believe in the efficacy of the capitalist system and the government system that sustains it; liberals, unlike socialists, believe the irrationalities and injustices of capitalism can be fixed with reforms that will allow the market system to continue. In fact, many liberals, unlike socialists, would like to see more competition in the marketplace, for example supporting greater antitrust enforcement as one of the tools for dealing with corporate abuse. Socialists reject this sort of pro-market liberalism out of hand.
In practical terms, modern liberalism in the United States has regressed considerably in recent years. Liberalism has been on the decline politically, and its ability to deliver on its promises seems more remote than ever . Not only has it retreated politically in the face of conservatism, but its promises of economic justice ring hollow in the face of the market pressures of globalization. Because the grassroots of liberalism has steadfastly maintained its allegiance to the Democratic Party, it has become caught in a spiral of increasing retrenchment. As the Democratic Party continues to move rightward, its liberal supporters, trapped by their own lesser-evilism, end up supporting and even contributing to a continuing rightward drift in American politics. Liberalism is, for all intents and purposes, dead.
Liberalism has always been as much a reactive force as a proactive ideology. The New Deal emerged out of the depths of the Great Depression, at a time when Communists and Socialists were winning new converts at the ballot box. Capitalism feared for its life, and needed something to rescue it. The mission of New Deal liberalism was to save capitalism, not only from itself, but from the radical left. Ever since then, liberals have proudly proclaimed that the New Deal saved capitalism from both menaces. The threat to liberalism from the left was something that liberalism indeed made a point of addressing. When Hubert Humphrey, who became known as one of American's preeminent liberals, purged radicals from the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, he made it clear where he stood with respect to the radical left. Liberalism did not view the radical left as its natural ally, but rather as an enemy force, to be purged and stamped out if necessary. This hostility to the radical left is a Democratic Party tradition that goes all the way back to the Red Scare of 1917, which took place under the auspices of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
Winning Converts
If socialism is ever going to become successful at achieving the kind of radical change that it seeks, it will have to win over converts. An obvious target for proselytizing are liberals. Socialists certainly share with liberals many of the same concerns. Socialists and liberals understand and want to address many of the problems that exist in society--poverty, economic inequality, racial injustice, and sexism. If socialists can point out to liberals that their legitimate concerns can only be addressed successfully by socialism, then there is hope for winning them over to socialism.
However--and this is a key point--the only way this is possible is by being clear on the fundamental differences that exist between the radical vision of socialism and the reformist vision of liberalism.
Socialists and liberals can and must serve as allies on specific issues of mutual concern. These alliances can be valuable, both as a means of winning enough support to achieve various aims, but only through such contacts can socialists proselytize liberals. But these ad hoc alliances should always be done with clear boundaries in place. Socialists must always make clear that these alliances are issues-based, and do not represent ideological unity.
Obviously, proselytizing is not effective if socialists denounce grassroots liberals out of hand. Tactically speaking, socialists have to engage liberals in a dialogue, rather than denouncing them for their views. But this dialogue always takes place with a full understanding that the goal is to encourage liberals to re-examine their ideology and to consider ideological change. It also means recognizing that while grassroots liberals are well-intentioned, the party that they unfortunately and mistakenly support--the Democratic Party--is fundamentally insidious in nature. We thus distinguish between grassroots activists on the one hand, and the powerful political machinery of the capitalist duopoly on the other.
Political Parties
It is important not to confuse tactical and ideological issues. Liberals are finding themselves increasingly disconnected from the Democratic Party, to which they continue to show their allegiance. An example of this can be found in the 2004 elections, when the vast majority of liberals opposed the Iraq War, and they supported and largely voted for John Kerry, who ran a prowar campaign. Liberals are caught in a bind. Increasingly, they feel frustrated that the leaders of their party--John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and others--have absented themselves from the antiwar and other progressive movements.
It is one thing to point out to liberals what is wrong with their party. But this is merely a tactical, rather than an ideological argument. To convince a liberal that the Democratic Party does not serve the interests of liberalism is not to convince them to abandon liberalism in favor of radicalism. Telling someone to switch tactics does not have anything to do with getting them to change their ideology. A tactical argument such as this will not convert directly anyone to socialism. It is important to go further than merely show liberals that the Democratic Party is a failure as a progressive force. It is important to show them why this is--why the Democratic Party, as an engine of capitalist interests, cannot serve the goal of social justice.
Some liberals naively hope to "reform" the Democratic Party. The Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) is an example of just such a movement. While this effort is almost certainly doomed to failure, it is not enough to merely point out that progressivism has no home in the Democratic Party. At best, this might only convince liberals to leave the Democratic Party in favor of the Green Party, which is more consistently progressive than the Democrats. It will not in and of itself convince them to support socialism. In any case, given the strongly pro-Democratic Party current that currently exists within the Green Party, this now makes less and less sense for any liberal hanger-on who might consider abandoning the Democrats in favor of a more "progressive" alternative.
Where does the Socialist Party fit in all of this? There has been much debate within the party over the question of how to relate to the Democratic Part. Some members on the right wing of the party have formed the First and Rose Tendency (FaRT), which presents in its manifesto the goal of establishing formal contacts with other left wing groups, both internationally and within the United States. Thus this tendency seems to be organized around the very issue of establishing a dialogue with others, including the liberal left.
Yet the devil is in the details. One rather curious statement of this manifesto is the following:
Being critical of the mainstream Democratic leadership these days, we recognize that there are Democrats with politics and ideology consistent with the aims and desires of all of the democratic-left in the United States and around the world. They like to call themselves "liberals" or "progressives," yet they are still marginalized today. They are or should be our political allies, and it is our job to convince them that their ideal of "liberalism" or "progressivism" is synonymous with democratic-socialism.That last sentence is particularly troubling. Nowhere in the above passage is there any indication that liberalism and socialism represent different, competing ideological strains of thought. On the contrary, this statement seems to obfuscate the issue by asserting that "their ideal of 'liberalism' or 'progressivism' is synonymous with democratic-socialism." The suggestion seems to be that the decision by liberals to adhere to the Democratic Party is merely a tactical mistake on their part, thereby ignoring the ideological task at hand.
Further confusing the matter, the manifesto also seems to pull its punches with respect to the Democratic Party. The manifesto at first calls for an alternative to both parties of the duopoly, but to quite different degrees. Although it condemns the Republican Party outright, its criticism of the Democrats is much milder, merely saying that the "current leadership of the Democratics runs far short of what we would like to see." By making a point of identifying the "current" leadership as the problem, it is possible to infer that a possible "future" leadership would not run short of expectations, thus undermining the very goal of convincing Democratic Party grassroots activists to abandon their party. The PDA, which seeks to reform the Democratic Party, would also agree that the "current leadership" falls short of what they would like to see. Thus this manifesto hardly offers a convincing argument for abandoning the Democratic Party. (This ambivalence towards the Democratic Party may be reflected by the fact that at least some of the signers of that manifesto have supported Democratic Party candidates themselves.)
Naturally, it is important for Socialists to ally themselves with liberals on issues of specific mutual interest. Denouncing or attacking grassroots activists for supporting the Democratic Party makes no sense whatsoever. You don't proselytize by antagonizing. FaRT, in seeking to promote contacts with the liberal and progressive left, rightfully stresses this point, but in reality, it isn't clear who on socialist left advocates attacking progressive grassroots activists in that way. Socialists acknowledge the sincerity of the grassroots of the liberal left, but a serious problem lies with the politicians who make up the elite machinery of the Democratic Party. The idea that there is such a thing as a "good Democrat" among the politicians of that party is a myth that many of FaRT seem to adhere to. The fact is that even Dennis Kucinich, whose antiwar views were shut out of the Democratic Party platform process in 2004, supported John Kerry. Politicians of that Party have signed on to the whole political process; they must, necessarily, support the party apparatus of which they are a part, lest they commit political suicide. Dennis Kucinich may be a progressive, but he is still part of a party apparatus that feeds him. He knows better than to pull his own feeding tube. And his loyalty to his party means that he will willingly attack alternative party movements, such as the Greens, whose votes he nevertheless will gladly take. Peter Camejo discussed this in his Avocado Declaration.
Socialism will require a party-based opposition to the ruling capitalist duopoly. The party or parties who will be involved in this process are not clear at this time, but the Socialist Party USA can play an important role in this process of developing just such an opposition which stands outside of and opposed to the Democratic Party, which is an enemy party that supports corporate interests. Socialists must be clear about their relationship with liberals. Socialists must not blur the distinction between their radicalism and the reformism of liberal thinking. These are different ideologies, and liberals can only be won over to socialism by ideological change. They must thus understand that their role is not merely to convince liberals of some sort of tactical change, but of an ideological one as well. This means that socialists must not shy away from or obfuscate the ideological differences between themselves and liberals. This in turn means not shunning the importance of spreading the word to them about the great philosophical questions involving the means of production and the role that profits play in capitalist society. Socialists must woo liberals to socialism with polite persuasion as we ally with them on specific issues, while at the same time we point out to them the corruption of the Democratic Party apparatus.
This will be neither an easy nor a short process. But if it is ever to succeed, socialists must be clear on these important strategic considerations.
Excellent piece. I, too, continue to push for more clarity in the political terms we use. Every time I think about the Dumbocratic leadership co-opting the term "progressive" because "liberal" had become a four-letter word, rather than a seven-letter one, I just wanna punch someone.
Posted by
total |
5:14 AM
Post a Comment