Sunday, November 27, 2005

The Antiwar Movement versus the Democratic Party

Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch put it very well this weekend as he summarized how the Democrats continue to show how contemptible they are in their inability to embrace the antiwar movement:
Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats' leader in the House abruptly retreated from a scheduled pres conference to express support for Murtha. Scenting weakness, the Republicans put up a resolution calling for withdrawal now. Democratic panic escalated into pell mell retreat, shouting back over their shoulders that they weren't going to fall for such a dirty Republican trick. Why not? What better chance will they get to go on record against the war? In the end just three Democrats (Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Jose Serrano of New York, and Robert Wexler of Florida voted for immediate withdrawal and six voted "present"). McKinney put it starkly:

"I will not vote to give one more soldier to the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney war machine. A vote on war is the single most important vote we can make in this House. I understand the feelings of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who might be severely conflicted by the decision we have to make here tonight. But the facts of US occupation of Iraq are also very clear."

They may be clear to McKinney, and Murtha and 60 per cent of the American people, but not to the three Democratic Senators interested in the presidential nomination in 2008. Even after Murtha's lead Russell Feingold continued to mumble about the "target date" for withdrawal being 2006, as does Kerry. For her part Hillary Clinton announced at the start of Thanksgiving week that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake" which "would cause more problems for us in America. It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state"
The most important lesson that we can take from this is that the Democrats and the antiwar movement have nothing to do with one another. This is an important lesson to consider as we read today about a man named Steven Greenfield, who has left the Green Party in New York and joined the Democrats so that he can challenge Hillary Clinton in the primaries next year. His intention is to run an antiwar campaign; he was quoted as saying of Clinton that "she's in favor of the war and in favor of continuing the occupation". While his criticisms of Clinton are true, his strategy of abandoning a third party movement precisely at a time when the Democrats are so vulnerable shows that Greenfield is more interested in opportunism than in building the third party that he had supposedly been committed to.

This kind of opportunism unfortunately does crop up among some participants in third party movements who seek public office. It shows the seductive power of the duopoly, but it is a failed strategy. The antiwar movement must not delude itself by allying itself with a party that has repeatedly shown its disinterest in our cause.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Support your friendly neighborhood Left wing third party

If there ever was a time for third parties on the Left to fill a vacuum in American politics, now is it.

Terry Neal writes in the Washington Post that the Democrats will continue to flounder without proposing a principled antiwar voice in opposition to Bush's quagmire in Iraq. Neal reports that a" senior Democratic staff member in the House" told him that
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has called a meeting of House Democratic leaders on Dec. 7 to begin trying to build consensus on what to do with the troops in Iraq. But Pelosi has decided against a plan to have the conference endorse a version of Murtha's plan.
With the majority of Americans opposing the war in increasing numbers, now is the time for a strong voice on the Left to speak strongly and firmly against the war. This would have been a golden opportunity for a genuine and principled opposition party to seize; but the Democrats are clearly not that opposition party.

In fact, according to Neal,
A new Wall Street Journal poll has Bush's approval rating down to 34 percent. The problem for Democrats is that they're rated by the public even lower than the Bush administration and are essentially tied with congressional Republicans, with only about a quarter of the public approving of the job both are doing.
With so much discontent and dissatisfaction among Americans with both parties of the duopoly, it is clear that the solution to our problems does not lie with pursuing the status quo.

Hillary Clinton, warmonger extraordinaire

Hillary Clinton says that an immediate pullout from Iraq would be a "mistake".

She has been one of the leading warmongers in the Senate all along, so this comes as no surprise.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Yet another commentary on the Murtha proposal

I saw an interesting comment from Joanne Landy, director of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, about what Murtha proposed. It was forwarded in an email list that I am on. Here is what she said:
As far as I can tell, the main "nuance" in Murtha is that while he wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq, he wants to redeploy U.S. troops somewhere next door to Iraq. In his Nov 17 speech he said that his plan wants:
  • To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

  • To create a quick reaction force in the region.

  • To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.

  • To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
Murtha's speech is dynamite because it shakes up the status quo by sharply raising the issue of withdrawal from Iraq -- a position that is rejected by mainstream Democrats as well as Republicans because it would represent a defeat for U.S. empire. BUT in calling for a continuing strong U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Murtha retains an imperial approach. This needs to be pointed out. As far as I could tell from their incoherent ramblings during the debate, many of the Democrats in Congress were furious because the Republicans had stripped out the imperial elements from Murtha's position when they introduced an immediate-withdrawal-from-Iraq resolution for a forced vote without including the imperial codicils.

More on the Democrats and the war

As a followup to my comments about the Democrats and their response to the Republican resolution on Iraq, ZNet has published an insightful commentary by Gilbert Achcar and Stephen R. Shalom on this subject. Here is a key part of the article:
[T]he anti-war movement needs to be careful not to confuse Murtha's position with its own.

When Murtha says "redeploy" -- instead of withdraw -- the troops from Iraq, he makes clear that -- despite his rhetoric -- he doesn't want to really bring them home, but to station them in the Middle East. As he told Anderson Cooper of CNN:

"We ... have united the Iraqis against us. And so I'm convinced, once we redeploy to Kuwait or to the surrounding area, that it will be much safer. They won't be able to unify against the United States. And then, if we have to go back in, we can go back in."

Moreover, Murtha's resolution calls for the U.S. to create "a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines" to be "deployed to the region."

We strongly disagree. The anti-war movement cannot endorse U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, whether over or under the horizon. We don't want U.S. troops remaining in the region and poised to go back into Iraq. They don't belong there, period. Some -- though not Murtha -- suggest keeping U.S. bases within Iraq, close to the oil fields or in Kurdistan, in order to intervene more or less on the pattern of what U.S. forces are doing in Afghanistan. But this is a recipe for disaster, since the Iraqi view that the United States intends a permanent occupation is one of the main causes inciting the insurgency. Moreover, stationing U.S. forces in Kurdistan could only deepen the already dangerous ethnic animosities among Iraqis. In any event, if U.S. troops continue to be used in Iraq -- whether deployed from bases inside the country or from outside -- they will inevitably continue to cause civilian casualties, further provoking violence. Having a U.S. interventionary force stationed in Kuwait or in a similar location will continue to inflame the opposition of Iraqis who will know their sovereignty is still subject to U.S. control. As for the impact of keeping U.S. forces anywhere else in the larger region, it should be recalled that their presence was the decisive factor leading to 9-11 and fuels "global terrorism" in the same way that the U.S. military presence in Iraq "fuels the insurgency" there.

Murtha, we need to keep in mind, is not opposed to U.S. imperial designs or U.S. militarism. He criticizes the Bush administration because its Iraq policies have led to cuts in the (non-Iraq) defense budget, threatening the U.S. ability to maintain "military dominance."

Murtha's resolution calls for redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date" -- which is reasonable only if it means that the withdrawal should be started immediately and completed shortly after the December elections, with the exact details to be worked out with the elected Iraqi government. In his press conference, however, Murtha estimated it would take six months to carry out the "redeployment," which seems far longer than the "earliest practicable date." (Recall that U.S. troops were withdrawn from Vietnam in 90 days from the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty.) To set such a long time period for the evacuation of Iraq is all the more worrying given that the decision to withdraw the troops is not even being considered yet by the Bush administration or the bipartisan majority of the U.S. Congress.

Congressional Republicans, in a transparent ploy, offered a one-sentence resolution stating that the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq be terminated immediately. Murtha called this "a ridiculous resolution" that no Democrat would support (Hardball with Chris Matthews, Nov. 18). In point of fact, the resolution was opposed by all of the pro-war Democrats and most of the anti-war Democrats, who (as the Republicans hoped) didn't want to be accused of "cutting and running." But actually the resolution wasn't ridiculous at all understood in the sense we have just explained.

Achcar and Salom hit the nail right on the head. The fact is that Murtha's resolution, while a step in the right direction, represented something different from what the antiwar movement is advocating. The devil is in the details, and the reasons behind his proposal are more practical than principled--the war is a failed implementation of an agenda that he still seems to support; so let's end the war, he seems to be telling us, but the imperial goals that lay behind the way are still worth pursuing. Let us not forget that he was a war hawk. His six month timetable is excessive and his goal of redeploying troops elsewhere in the mideast is just a continuation of US imperialism. The prowar Democrats--as well as people with muddled views on the war like Nancy Pelosi, who has herself refused to endorse an immediate withdrawal or to endorse Murtha's proposal at her Friday press conference--actually used the Republican resolution to duck behind, to avoid taking a real, principled stand against the war.

The Democrats Fail the Test

Many Democratic Party apologists and many pro-Democrat bloggers got into a tizzy over the fact that the Republicans offered a different resolution on the Iraq War than the one that John Murtha wanted to vote on. But the reality is that the Republicans called the Democrat's bluff. The resolution that the Republicans offered was actually better than the one that Murtha wanted a vote on, because it called for an immediate end to US involvement in Iraq. The problem is that the even the supposedly "antiwar" Democrats don't really know what their stand on the Iraq War is--they sort of support it, and they sort of are against it. A grand total of 3 Democrats voted for that resolution. The rest of the Democrats blinked. They just refused to take a firm stand against the war.

The Socialist Party USA has issued a statement on this issue that speaks to the point:

STATEMENT ON CONGRESSIONAL TROOP WITHDRAWAL VOTE

In a highly uncharacteristic move, members of the United States Congress recently brought to the floor a resolution perfectly representing the position of the Socialist Party USA, namely "... that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

There was no surprise regarding its fate, however: only 3 Democrats and no Republicans voted for it. As usual, the imperialist agenda of both capitalist parties ruled the day: just more proof that the game-plan for both Republicans and Democrats is long-term political and economic control of the Middle East through the continuing use of U.S. military force.

This comes through clearly in the conditions of the Democrats' newly-minted anti-war position. Part dove, part hawk, the Democratic "plan" couples a vague time-table for troop withdrawal with a call for the establishment of a "quick-reaction force" and a nearby presence of Marines. More hypocrisy and opportunism in the service of global capitalism, and more need than ever for independent political action in general and Socialist Party candidacies in particular.

The Socialist Party USA stands firm in its call for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and for an immediate cut of at least 50% in the military budget. We also demand that revenue currently funding the military machine be redirected to education, health care, child care, housing, mass transit, and social services, and that additional revenue be generated by instituting a steeply graduated Federal income tax targeting the income and wealth of the very rich.

Bring the troops home now! Cut the military budget! Tax the rich! People before profits!

John Jacobs, in Counterpunch has written an article titled "If It Walks Like a Withdrawal Resolution, and Talks Like One, Then Why Won't You Vote For It?" In the article, Jacobs points out:

Now, excuse me if I don't get it, but it seems to me that if one is against the war and wants to see an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, then one votes for immediate withdrawal, no matter who sponsors the legislation. Only Cynthia McKinney (GA), Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), Robert Wexler (Fla.) agreed with this approach and voted for the resolution (and for immediate withdrawal). Six other Congressional members voted present and the other 403 voted to continue the war in Iraq as is. This may have been a political trick by the GOP, who may have hoped to get some Democrats to vote for immediate withdrawal and thereby paint them into some corner with Saddam Hussein or the phantom al-Zarqawi come election time in the hope that a war-weary public might start supporting the war again. Instead, what the GOP got was an overwhelming vote for the war--a vote that they can also use to their advantage come election time when Democratic candidates attack the same war that they are to chickenshit to genuinely oppose.

The reality is that while Murtha's call for withdrawal represents a positive step, the Democrats continue to cling to their confused and irrelevant approach to the Iraq War.

Friday, November 18, 2005

Pelosi's muddled views on the Iraq War

It was interesting to see the typically muddled and evasive answers that Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democratic Party in the House, gave in her most recent press conference, when she was asked about Murtha's statement in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Q Do you agree with what he said?

Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Murtha, this is his day. He will be talking about his statement, and as I said, it will be very provocative for us as we discuss among ourselves our policy in Iraq. But I think it speaks very strongly to the point that the President's policy is not working; two and a half years after the President said, "mission accomplished," we still don't know what the mission is. So the focus really shouldn't be on Mr. Murtha, it should be on the President of the United States and his failed policy in Iraq.

Uh, Nancy, was that a yes or a no?

Q Do you agree with the call for immediate withdrawal?

Ms. Pelosi. As I said, that was Mr. Murtha's statement, and I will take it under consideration.
Uh, Nancy, was that a yes or a no?
Q What about your own thoughts about some type of timetable for withdrawal?

Ms. Pelosi. As I said, my two criteria are: does our presence there make America safer, and does it strengthen our military? I do not believe that it does. So Mr. Murtha, again, not to characterize his remarks because they are his remarks, but what he put forth is a way for us to address the situation in Iraq that makes us safer and strengthens our military.

Uh, Nancy, does that mean you favor a timetable or not?

Nancy Pelosi has, in fact, continually talked out of both sides of her mouth on this issue. She criticizes the war, but has thus far been unable or unwilling to support an immediate withdrawal from the Iraq, and she has continually voted to fund the war.

It is possible that she may reverse herself on the Iraq war, as Murtha did. Like Murtha, who had supported the war, she may succumb to the rising public tide against this war. It will, of course, be a case of the Democrats coming to the party way too late. The Democrats have thus far not offered a truly principled opposition to the war in Iraq, they refused to offer the kind of leadership that would have framed the debate in a way that would have pushed the debate into the morality of the war. It is only because of growing public sentiment, and antiwar leaders like Cindy Sheehan, that some Democrats, like Murtha, are finally starting to respond. The question is--why haven't the Democrats been calling for immediate withdrawal all along?

Answer that question, and you will understand why the Democrats are hopeless as an opposition party--that, in fact, they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Debs Tendency statement on a left third party

The Debs Tendency of the Socialist Party USA has issued a statement on the goal of creating a Left Third Party. Although this statement is directed at the Socialist Party, offering a strategy that the party should take, it also represents a proposal to reach out to others on the Left. I believe that its arguments can largely be shared by anyone on the Left who opposes working with the Democratic Party, and who understands how self-defeating it is for anyone on the left to try to work with the Democrats. The statement correctly notes that a significant faction within the Green Party (those aligned with the Progressive Democrats of America, for example), as well as some (unfortunately) within the the Socialist Party, mistakenly support the occasional Democratic Party politician, under the faulty assumption that there are some "good Democrats" who can somehow be separated from the political organization to which they are intimately connected. More importantly, such efforts at supporting "good Democrats" drain all opportunity for building a third party movement, not least because it is hard enough convincing people to abandon their loyalty to the duopoly, and that task is made impossible if even members of a third party continue to give levels of support to it.

The Debs Tendency statement implies support for working with others on the Left who also oppose the Democratic Party, not just socialists but also who may not embrace socialism. This would seem to include some members of the Green Party. The Socialist Party can, in a "non-sectarian" and "non-authoritarian" manner, argue for their position on the preferability of socialism. In that way, we maintain our integrity while showing a friendly willingness to work with others who oppose the duopoly.

The statement also refutes the idea that rejecting the Democrats as a political institution means never working with liberals or progressives on various causes of common interest. This canard occasionally gets repeated by those on the right of the Socialist Party, and it simply isn't true. Socialists can and should work with liberals and progressives in various labor, antiwar, or other organizations, in order to issue-based alliances. There is a difference between forming an issue-based alliance, and forming an electoral alliance. This is a key point. Socialists should work with liberals and progressives on issues, but should not endorse Democratic Party candidates or work within the Democratic Party per se. This difference is important, and frankly not that difficult to distinguish.

Here is the text of the Debs Tendency statement:


The Need for United Independent Political Action By The Left, Progresssive Movement Forces, Minority Communities, And Working People In General

A Statement by the Debs Tendency, Socialist Party USA

The American Left is in a time of opportunity and at the same time in a crisis of leadership. Recent events have changed the political landscape dramatically from what it was a year ago. The Iraq War, which is more obviously a war of profit and exploitation each day, has lost the support of the majority of Americans. Hurricane Katrina has ripped apart a city and an entire region, and the utterly botched response to it has laid bare the race and class divisions in American society and the increasingly crass corporatism rife in the government. Energy prices are ripping through record highs and threatening the existence of suburbia itself, as the rich get richer and the working class is slowly herded into the low-paying service industry. The Republican Party, long arrogant with power, is beleaguered by scandals among its top layers.

But the Democratic Party, long the graveyard of social movements, has failed to respond. There is barely a peep against the war, and most of that is just the tactic of replacing American helmets with United Nations helmets -- "imperialism by any other name". The most prominent Democrats, including those who would be President such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, are in favor of staying in Iraq, against the now majority opinion. The Democrats have made some noises against the Republican response to Katrina, but have not shown that they are even cognizant of the race and class structures that underlie the tragedy. They have no reasonable energy solutions, and their only response to neoliberal capitalism is "more, more, more!".

It is clear that the Democrats are ideologically bankrupt, a disease that goes from the top of the party down. And the Clinton presidency of the 1990s, "a parade of neoliberal capitalism, expanded imperialism,and the death of welfare", has shown that the Democratic "lesser evil" is itself a great evil. The crisis of the Left will not be solved until it leaves the Democratic Party entirely behind.

The Socialist Party USA by itself is not in a position to become a new major party today. However, the need for one is pressing and significant. The illusion of the Democrats as an opposition party has been exposed to growing layers of people and has created a space for third parties of the Left to present a strong appeal to the American people. The SPUSA should be a part of that. We should run our own candidates at every level feasible in 2006 and 2008, and fully support other third parties of the Left wherever we have no candidates. On the local and national levels we should engage in a dialogue with other Left third parties, other socialist groups, issue movements, community struggles, and emerging labor struggles with the aim of organizing independent, united front electoral slates and electoral entities whenever possible to make the next two elections, and beyond, a major statement that there is a need for Left politics independent of the Democratic machine and capitalist politics in general. In such formations, no party, organization or tendency would have to submerge its own identity or independence.

Left third parties are not, as a prominent faction in the Green Party, a small minority of activists in our own Party, and many of the the Naderites seem to think, primarily pressure groups on the Democrats. This is defeatist thinking that can only lead to more of the same crap. In its push forward, the Left third party movement must be militant in its independence, to the point of complete electoral separation from the Democrats; and it must be firm in its uncompromising, uninterrupted mobilization and organizing of mass progressive movements, even during election cycles. If we are willing to waffle on these points, to support "good" Democrats or "just local" Democratic candidates or national Democrats in "extreme circumstances", we are starting by shooting ourselves in the foot. The "good" Democrats are part and parcel of the corporatist machine, bringing activists back into the trap of two-party politics that are our problem to begin with. The local levels are where the two-party system can most realistically be challenged. And "extreme circumstances" are just the time when we should be pointing out the bankruptcy of both major parties the most. Most people in this country have deep-seated illusions about the two party system, and we must oppose this duopoly shell game without exception if the Left third party movement is to have any credibility. This is not to say that we cannot be union members or part of broad movements that include Democrats, but that our electoral stance and strategies beyond elections must be independent.

For all these reasons, the Debs Tendency declares its support for the orientation of the Socialist Party USA toward building a united, fully independent, progressive, grass roots, working class oriented third party movement in the United States, and its militant opposition to the Democratic Party and the whole system at every level in electoral and social action. Over time and in a non-sectarian and non-domineering way, the Socialist Party should try to democratically and positively influence and educate such parties toward a socialist perspective whenever possible, a perspective that points the way toward the basic socialist transformation of society, not just its radical democratic reform.

Monday, November 07, 2005

American Workers are Earning Less

The Christian Science Monitor reported today that workers' wages have dropped 2.3% in the last year, after adjusting for inflation. This represents an acceleration of a trend that has been taking place over the last four years.

This is the reality of the American economy, and it is interesting to contrast this bit of reality with a clueless article last week from Bloomberg, which stated:
The U.S. economy hasn't grown so fast for so long in almost 20 years. Unemployment is near a four-year low. Home ownership is at a record high.

Yet most Americans say President George W. Bush is doing a bad job handling the economy. In an Oct. 24-26 Gallup Organization poll, 71 percent said the economy was ``only fair'' or ``poor,'' and 66 percent said it was getting worse.

``It's the damnedest thing; it's got to be particularly frustrating for the people in the Bush administration,'' said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Washington Research Group Inc. in Washington. ``There does seem to be a disconnect between the statistics and the opinions.''
The above quote by Mr. Valliere illustrates just how much macroeconomic statistics can sometimes be divorced from the real lives of people. The simple fact that seems to escape some economic and political analysts is that if people are making less money than they were before, then the economy is not doing well for them. Contrary to Mr. Valliere's comment, there is no disconnect between the statistics and the opinions. And the reality is that people are correct in their assessment that the economy is getting worse.

When capitalist economics focuses on large scale statistic like GDP or the unemployment rate, it fails to look at the reality of everyday workers lives. It all depends on which statistics you choose to look at, and if you turn a blind eye to certain kinds of statistics, it is easy to forget what is really going on. The unemployment rate doesn't say anything about the quality or kinds of jobs that people have, or how much these jobs pay. It used to be that the largest employer in the United States was General Motors. Now it is Wal-Mart. What does this tell us about the direction that our economy is headed?

Nor do average statistics tell anything about the distribution of incomes. If the overall economy is growing, but at the same time it is putting less money into workers' pockets, then it must be putting even more money into someone else's pockets--and who could that be, but the capitalists ruling class? Without a class analysis of what is happening in the American economic system, any attempt at understanding the whys and wherefores of the economic system are doomed to failure.

It is no surprise to anyone, except for a select group of ivory tower economists and George Bush apologists, that Americans are dissatisfied with the economic for good reason. The next question is, of course, what are we going to do about it? Clearly, the Democratic Party does not offer a solution to the problem--the Democrats run screaming from the very idea of class warfare. The problem is that class warfare is a reality in American society, whether the Democrats want to acknowledge it or not. The war is being waged every day, by capitalism against ordinary working people. And this is the reality of the American economic system.

The solution is to address this fundamental, systemic problem that exists in our society. This can only be accomplished by transferring the management of society's resources to the democratic management by workers, communities, consumers, and neighborhoods. In other words, the solution is socialism.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

SP USA statement of principles

Membership in the Socialist Party USA is based on agreement with the statement of principles. Those who with to join simply sign a statement indicating that they agree with the principles, and then send dues to the party.

The statement of principles are general enough to accommodate a variety of interpretations. The SP USA is a multi-tendency party, meaning that there is disagreement among the membership over some of the details of these broad principles. The party is also fundamentally democratic in character; party members freely debate and discuss among themselves many of the details of socialist principles and practice.

I think that consideration of these principles are important, because many people, including those on the progressive left, have many misconceptions about what socialism is. The first sentence in the SOP reads, "The Socialist Party strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control -- a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community." Many equate socialism with government bureaucracy, rigid top-down control, authoritarianism, or other practices that I would characterize as "socialism from above". The Socialist Party makes it clear in its principles that this is not what socialism is and it is not what the SP advocates. Instead, the SP makes it clear that it advocates "socialism from below"--a radical democracy in which communities and workers democratically manage society's resources.

I think that this in a nutshell summarizes the key point about socialism. If people begin to understand that socialism is nothing more than simply putting radical democracy into practice, then much of the resistance that exists in many people's minds to socialism will melt away. Many on the non-socialist left (liberals and progressives), if asked if they would embrace the concept of radical democracy, would say yes, of course they would. And yet if you asked them their opinion of socialism, they would say that they reject it. This is the disconnect that socialists have to address.

The SOP elaborates on this point almost immediately in its statement of principles, when it says:
Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few.
Giving workers, consumers, and neighborhoods democratic control over their lives represents the core of my values--and I believe that this can be (and should be) consistent with the core values of all on the progressive left. If those on the progressive left better understood that this is what socialism is about, many of them would be more receptive to socialism as an ideology.

Once we understand that socialism is simply another name for radical democracy, then many of the other elements in the statement of principles clearly fall into place. The SOP states that the party opposes both capitalism and the dictatorial "Communist" systems. Both systems deny fundamental human rights; both systems deny communities and workers fundamental democratic control of the production, distribution, and use of resources. On the other hand, democratic socialism, as advocated by the SP, does require a revolution, in order to throw off the old structures of power that govern and control society:
Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations. The building of socialism requires widespread understanding and participation, and will not be achieved by an elite working "on behalf of" the people.
The term "revolution" may seem scary, but in reality any kind of change in which the forms and structure of power are democratized necessarily represents a "revolution". Only by overturning existing power structures can true radical democracy be achieved. That means overturning the entrenched power that current exists in the capitalist system, and it means establishing new avenues of radical democratic participation that will stand in contrast to the current economic and political structures that control capitalist society. Some of the broader details of this are discussed later in the SOP, but the key point here is that democratizing society can only be achieved by a broad mass of people taking power away from the ruling capitalist class.

What mass of people? Here is where it is important to understand what we mean when we talk of "class". In American political discourse, class is often described in terms of income levels. We often hear talk of the "middle class", which is assumed to be most people with middle incomes, while the "working class" is assumed to be factory workers, and "lower class" refers to people with low incomes. But this is not the socialist understanding of class. When socialists talk about the "working class", they refer to the vast majority of people. Socialists define class in terms of whether or not one must sell one's labor to make a living. If you have to find a job in the workplace in order to survive, rather than earning money off the labor of others, you are in the working class. For the most part, it isn't much more complicated than that. And that means that I am a worker, and in all probability you are too. Capitalists--those in the ruling class--are those who control the means of production. Most of us don't control the means of production, and instead earn our incomes on the labor market. And what socialism advocates is turning over the management of the means of production to the vast majority of people through democratic institutions.

The SP statement of principles puts it this way when says, "The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future – to a real radical democracy from below."

Liberals and others on the progressive left have nothing to fear when socialists talk about the working class as the basis of socialism. Recapitulating, then, all socialists mean is that when you take society as whole, and subtract out the capitalists, essentially what you have left are the workers. That is to say, those of us without the power in capitalist society are the ones who need to democratize society.

The opening section of thestatementt of principles concludes with this simple statement: "Radical democracy is the cornerstone not only of our socialism, but also of our strategy. "

Radical democracy is the basis of socialism, and the basis of what the Socialist Party USA stands for.

Quote of the Day

Laura Santina, writing in Counterpunch, had this to say a few days ago:

"A recent Boston Globe article focused on the fact that the Democrats are struggling to find one voice on Iraq. We don't need one voice from the Democrats. We need every Democrat who voted for this war to apologize for this illegal and immoral war and to insist that we leave Iraq immediately."

This is something to bear in mind as the liberal pundits and bloggers wet their pants over Harry Reid's actions in the Senate yesterday to get the Senate to investigate the way that the Bush regime manipulated intelligence in the period leading up to war in Iraq. In fact, the leaders of the Democratic Party who were beating the drums for war--people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry--have yet to apologize for this vote or take anything even remotely like an antiwar stand. The Clintons and the Kerrys of the world continue to do everything they can to distance themselves from the antiwar movement.

In the pro-corporate, pro-war consensus that dominates American politics, the Democrats and Republicans bear equal responsibility for what happened in Iraq. History has repeatedly shown that the Democratic Party is irredeemably corrupt. While we should applaud and support any effort at investigating the Bush regime in its sordid efforts at justifying the Iraq War, we should also hold the Democrats to the fire as well. The solution to our current political mess does not lie in either major political party, and this is something that the Left should understand.

The American Gulag

The Washington Post has reported that the CIA maintains a worldwide network of secret prisons where it detains and interrogates captives. One such prison is located in an unspecified Eastern European country. The secret nature of this gulag means that "virtually nothing is known about who the detainees are, how they are interrogated or about decisions on how long they will be held." A particularly ominous portion of that level of ignorance the question of "how they are interrogated." Combining the fact of secrecy with the effort by the White House to exempt the CIA from the proposed prohibition against torture, and it isn't hard to connect the dots. One can only surmise that the CIA is practicing torture throughout the world, with the full complicity and support of the Bush regime.