How to Become a Vanguard: Learning from Socialist Alternative

by Abe Denken on March 27, 2014

The vanguard.

It’s what American Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyist-Leninists have aspired to become ever since McCarthyism obliterated the Communist Party and its influence over the working class and the union movement. The Socialist Workers Party, the International Socialists, the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Progressive Labor Party, and the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) of the 1960-1970s all emerged convinced that they and they alone were America’s Bolsheviks, the nucleus of a future vanguard party, destined to triumph over their (Menshevik) competitors.

All of them were wrong.

Not one of them developed a mass following among working people. Not one of them exerted any influence over the direction or policies of the union movement. And it’s not like they didn’t try. Tens of thousands of red activists dedicated countless man-hours over decades recruiting, training, and drilling new adherents who in turn did the same. Some of these groups persist to this day and are no closer to becoming vanguards now compared to when they started because their modus operandi never changed.

But wait, what’s a vanguard? And how does it develop?

An organization becomes a vanguard by always pushing the envelope, always striving to expand the scope of the politics of the possible; in so doing, it attracts a mass following, exerting influence over thousands or tens of thousands of people at a minimum; it becomes the universally recognized leader of a mass-based struggle or political trend; it spawns imitators as it wins followers.

Asking what a vanguard is is like asking what a leader is – someone with followers.

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee was a vanguard organization in the civil rights struggle. The Chinese Communist Party was the vanguard of the 1949 revolution. The Spanish CNT during the civil war against Franco’s fascists was a vanguard organization (yes, anarchists can be vanguards despite their hard-wired opposition to vanguard-ism). Occupy briefly played a vanguard role when progressives, liberals, labor, and the far left followed its lead politically, organizationally, and ideologically even though Occupy was hardly organized and even less coherent theoretically.

How do you attract such a following? How do you lead in such a way that people follow without cajoling, guilt-tripping, brow-beating, or otherwise coercing them?

There is no magic bullet but giving people what they want/need is a good start. The Black Panthers policed the police and handed out free breakfasts and clothes in their community while looking bad ass. Chinese Communists fought a war to expel murderous Japanese fascists while lowering rents and enacting land reform to uplift the peasant majority in areas they controlled. Hugo Chavez and his United Socialist Party won elections and directed state oil revenues away from the pockets of the 1% and towards the needs of the 99% while raising the banner of Bolivarianism.

VoteSawant

The examples are disparate but in each case radicals responded concretely in the here and now to the deeply felt needs, aspirations, and wants of the masses in a way that resonated not just materially but emotionally, even ‘spiritually.’ Councilwoman Kshama Sawant and her Seattle Socialist Alternative comrades are skillfully doing just that and, as a result, are playing a vanguard role locally (on the labor left) and nationally (on the socialist left). Anyone who doubts this needs to ask themselves:

  • When was the last time AFL-CIO union locals endorsed a flaming red running for office?
  • When was the last time an American socialist organization sat at the table as an equal player across from the likes of unions, labor-left nonprofits, and NGOs in a reform fight?
  • When was the last time the policy of a socialist organization had a concrete impact on the class struggle in the U.S.?

The Seattle-based Black Orchid Collective predicted that Sawant in office would serve as a “shock absorber” for capitalism, as a safety valve to demobilize and de-fang struggles against the system. Nate Hawthorne writing for The North Star made similar predictions based on the truism that the existing capitalist state machine is incompatible with the liberation of working people from the yoke of capital. Councilwoman Sawant’s doubters, skeptics, and naysayers have been proven wrong and wrong again every day since she took the oath of office. She and Socialist Alternative have functioned as shock promoters, using her electoral campaign and resulting victory to tirelessly fight to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour. They are becoming rooted in the American political landscape and the working class at the local level by launching neighborhood-based campaign groups and routinely mobilizing dozens and hundreds of supporters (all sporting Chavista-style red shirts). Many of these supporters are non-unionized, low-income workers, the very people the declining unions have struggled (largely unsuccessfully) to incorporate and the traditionally campus-based socialist left has ignored while espousing allegedly ‘rank and file’ union strategies. Like the late Hugo Chávez, Sawant is using elected office within the capitalist state to mobilize the un-mobilized and organize the unorganized.

For bourgeois politicians, opportunists, and reformists, the campaign ends on election day; for revolutionaries, election day is just the beginning. For them, the masses have exhausted their purpose once the polls close; for us, the masses have only just begun to be drawn into self-activity, into fighting for their own interests in a battle of democracy that extends well beyond election night. They stand for a temporary campaign, once every two or four years, a few months at a time; we stand for a permanent campaign, all day, every day, 24/7, 365 days a year, every year, until we reach the final goal – full communism. When Socialist Alternative’s Anh Tran said, “This campaign was an activist campaign and it will continue to be so after Kshama takes office,” she wasn’t kidding.

This mantra of the permanent campaign, of “unwearying, unceasing agitation” is not a new left reformist strategy but the old revolutionary strategy, the one pioneered by social democracy and plagiarized by the Communist International.

Just as this model inspired Lenin to build a Social Democratic Party of a German type in Tsarist Russian conditions so too has Sawant’s permanent campaign inspired radical electoral efforts across America. Whether these efforts succeed depends not on how perfectly they copy the original but on how well they adapt the model to locally-specific conditions (assuming that local conditions are even favorable for such an attempt).

The Sawant Effect

In Oakland, civil rights attorney Dan Siegel joins 12 other candidates striving to oust Occupy Oakland nemesis mayor Jean Quan. Although not a socialist, Siegal clearly took a page from the Sawant script in embracing the local equivalent of Seattle’s fight for $15 – a campaign to raise the minimum wage to $12.25. Unlike Sawant, the central theme of his campaign is safety – safety from crime, safety from economic insecurity, safety from police brutality, safety from decrepit schools, safety from domestic violence. It’s an attempt to co-opt a traditionally right-wing issue and message in conditions where impoverished residents have long been plagued by violent crime on the one hand and a brutal and corrupt police force on the other, leaving them with no real solutions to either problem (firing all the cops is neither real nor a solution).

Siegal has a shot at winning despite the overabundance of competition and the fact that he is losing the money race to at least four candidates by upwards of $100,000. Why? Because the city uses a non-partisan ranked choice voting system (also known as instant run-off voting). In 2010, Jean Quan lost the money race to Don Perata but beat him in votes thanks to the process of elimination mechanism that gives voters second and third choices; she won by being the second choice of the majority instead of the first choice of the minority. The only certainty in Oakland’s mayoral race is that it will be full of surprises.

In Chicago, a coalition explicitly created by the Sawant effect involves members of the groups Socialist Outpost, Solidarity, Socialist Alternative, the Socialist Party and the International Socialist Organization who have (finally) united in the Chicago Socialist Campaign to explore the feasibility of running a socialist for city alderman. They need an underwhelming 473 valid signatures by August 26, 2014 to get someone’s name on the ballot, but first they need to select a candidate who – unlike Sawant – must reside in a specific neighborhood ward.

Whether and who to run are the two most important decisions any prospective socialist campaign will make and getting those decisions right means taking into account the following three rules regarding electoral work.

Three Rules

1. Candidates Are the Key

In the American political system, elections are more contests between individuals and the forces that they can mobilize and bring to bear than they are contests between competing parties, platforms, and visions as in a European-style parliamentary system. An attractive candidate is essential; without one, don’t bother running.

Socialist Bernie Sanders not only survived but prospered within the enemy’s political system because his negatives among voters are low – they have watched his performance in office and on the campaign trail for decades in nearly a dozen races and they know he is not a standard-issue bourgeois politician. He won his historically Republican Senate seat with 71% of the vote; significant numbers of gun-toting Republicans vote for him because they respect him and connect with him on a class basis.

Lesson: when people respect you, they are more likely to vote for you even if they disagree with you programatically on important issues.

While low negatives are important, ‘likeability’ is critical.

Sawant became locally known as an Occupy veteran and got a sympathetic hearing from voters as a working immigrant, woman of color, part-time professor/full-time activist struggling (like everyone else) to make ends meet in the brave new world of neoliberalism. At the risk of sounding chauvinist, what could be more American than that? And in a city noted for its liberal multicultural values and storied history of protest and radicalism, what could be more Seattle than that? She cut with rather than against the cultural and aesthetic sensibilities of the local post-Occupy electorate. That she avoided obscurantist gibberish about the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and armed revolution didn’t hurt either.

2. Unseating Incumbents: Hard, Not Impossible

Incumbents almost always have the upper hand: money, power, resources, connections, networks, the ability to introduce new legislation or initiate new measures to steal the thunder of a challenger; Congress’ approval rating hovers around 35% but its incumbency rate is over 90% for a reason. Therefore, defeating an incumbent is primarily an exercise in assembling coalitions of the disgruntled – people/forces ignored, left behind, betrayed, or otherwise screwed over by the incumbent.

The Sawant campaign saw groups forming such as “Democrats for Sawant” and “small businesses for Sawant” and only a fool who confuses principles with tactics would reject such support. It’s not hard to see why these sectors became disgruntled. Her opponent Richard Conlin was the only member of the city council to vote against paid sick leave, a dick move no matter which way you slice it. Actions like that drive up an incumbent’s negatives and serve to increase, broaden, and infuriate the ranks of the disgruntled.

3. All Politics Is Local, Especially Local Politics

Foreign policy issues like U.S. drone strikes, occupations, and support for Israel simply have no place in local or even state races. Campaign on issues/themes you will actually have the power to do something about should you win.

A good local socialist campaign is not just about the ‘macro’ condemnations of capitalism but has to be grounded in ‘micro’ issues like potholes, zoning ordinances and every day, quality of life issues – the kind of stuff the radical left uses to score points against the system but generally refuses to do anything about.

$15 an hour gained force in Seattle despite the fact that the city has one of the highest minimum wages in the country ($9.32) because it also one of the most expensive places to live. Rents are 61% above the national average, so when liberal forces push for a slow phase-in of $15 an hour and Sawant and the 15Now campaign respond, “the rent can’t wait!,” that resonates. This is in addition to the fact that $15 an hour has become the rallying cry of striking low wage and fast food workers all over the country and therefore is an example of a demand “that actually [has] spontaneously arisen out of the labor movement itself” as Marx put it. “The mass line” Mao called it.

The Second Coming of Debs?

Given that socialists occupy less than 1% of the over 5,000 elected local offices in America and an even smaller proportion of offices at the state and federal levels and given that organized socialist currents today are numerically smaller in absolute terms than they were in the 1890s, picking and choosing our electoral fights carefully to strategically preserve our nearly non-existent resources is a good rule of thumb until those givens change.

If you run, run to win.

But for every rule there is an exception, and not for the first time in his long career, Bernie Sanders may be that exception. He is seriously considering a presidential run in 2016 and says he is ready to do it.

If Sanders runs, he will simultaneously claim the mantle of both Victor Berger and Eugene Debs. Berger (who converted Debs to socialism) was the king of the Socialist Party‘s “sewer socialists,” the rightist opportunist wing of the party that opposed Debs and the party’s revolutionary left. While Debs talked revolution, Berger talked reform; while Debs rallied working people to oust the government, Berger worked in the government for good governance; while Debs hailed the creation of the Russian soviet republic, Berger created publicly-owned utilities; Debs ran unsuccessfully for president while Berger stuck to winning local and federal offices.

The ability of one man to represent both of socialism’s historic wings is a reflection of the fact that the socialist movement in this country has all but disappeared as a meaningful political force. It is such a dysfunctional and inward-looking marginal fringe that it has no wings, left or right. But when the land of the free, home of the slave votes for a Black guy nearly named Osama to be president – twice – by a margin of millions and Trotskyists start winning city council races, the sorry state of the movement reflects neither the direction of the country nor the potential for the revival of American socialism as a mass trend.

If Sanders undertakes an “educational” campaign in 2016, he won’t be planting little red seeds in barren soil but watering the fragile, radical sprouts created by the Wisconsin uprising, Occupy, the fast food strikes, the local independent political action by unions, and the ongoing Dream Act activism that, taken together, constitute the material basis and demographic sustenance of what could become (with a lot of hard work) a socialist movement worthy of respect by working people and worthy of enmity by the 1%.

If Sanders runs, it would be the first time in a century that a socialist would be engaging mainstream America in comradely dialogue. Unlike Debs, Sanders will not be shouting at the top of his lungs from the back of the Red Special train car to large outdoor audiences but using microphones and speaking from the halls of the imperial Senate, from C-Span, from the platform of the 24-hour news networks to carry his message into people’s living rooms and iPads. (That Sanders even has access to these venues vindicates Lenin’s dictum that participation in bourgeois parliaments is obligatory for revolutionaries.) Thus, Sanders already has enormous advantages over both Jill Stein (who had to get arrested outside the presidential debates just to get a tiny bit of national publicity) and Ralph Nader (who was forcibly excluded from the debates and held large local super rallies instead).

If Sanders runs, he would undoubtedly rack up higher numbers than the Green Party’s Jill Stein did in 2012. Conceivably, he could come within striking distance of the 5% of the national electorate that Nader failed to win at his peak in 2000, a threshold that would trigger millions of dollars in federal matching funds for a 2020 race. In a national electorate of 130 million, that means nearly 7 million votes, more than twice what Nader got in 2000 in absolute terms.

And it is precisely this potential for success that worries Sanders. He does not want to be Nader 2.0. The 2000 campaign’s aftermath ended with Bush Jr.’s illegitimate and disastrous presidency and nearly killed the fragile Green Party, a double whammy for progressive forces. It took no less than three presidential election cycles for the party to regain ballot status in 44 out of 50 states. The fact that Sanders is talking about the spoiler problem is a strong signal that he does not intended to round up the left vote for the rightist nominee as Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition did twice in the 1980s.

However, Sanders is in a much better position than Nader was on the spoiler problem for many reasons:

1) He is head and shoulders above Nader as a candidate both in content and form. Nader’s tired petty-bourgeois consumer-centered reformist sermons were earnest but occasionally suffused with moralism and dismissive arrogance (nevermind his huge racial and gender blindspots). Sanders’ brand of Marxism-pragmatism is much sharper politically and his accessible style helped him overcome the handicap of a thick Brooklyn accent and non-Vermont roots to defeat almost every Vermonter who ran against him. He is acutely aware of and sensitive to the spoiler problem while Nader flippantly and boorishly dismissed such concerns saying, “you can’t spoil a spoiled system.” In other words, Sanders actually listens to the masses and takes their sentiments into account.

2) Sanders is not hidebound by the shortcomings of Green Party machinery.

3) The Republican Party is forever at war with itself. It has no nationally viable candidates since Chris Christie tripped over his own dick and landed on Bridgegate. More importantly, the party is dying demographically. They haven’t won the popular vote in a presidential election since 1988 with the exception of 2004 when Bush cheated his way to incumbency, so really they are 1 for 6 in the past six presidential cycles. In terms of the Electoral College, their peak was Bush’s 2004 run at 286 votes; in 2000, Bush “won” with a heavily disputed 271 count, a mere two votes away from defeat. Unless the Republicans manage to tack ‘left’ or deport/disenfranchise large numbers of non-Tea Party voters in swing states, the days of Republican presidents are basically over.

4) Sanders handily wins the Democratic Party nominations for Vermont’s House and Senate seats although he always declines to run on their ballot line and goes independent instead. Clearly he has a base within the party to mount a vigorous – but ultimately doomed – primary challenge to their presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton. Such a path (advocated by J.B. on The North Star) would have the same political reach as the Obama-Hillary fight in 2008 but stimulate far more substantive debate than the hopey-changey non-threatening Black guy ever could, to say nothing of spreading socialist awareness among literally millions of people. Potentially this could mean six months of a Main Street-Wall Street Sanders-Clinton slugfest starting with the Iowa caucuses and culminating in a Sanders-led walk out from the convention floor. Along the way, team Sanders could use Obama-style social networking to permanently organize legions of socialist Democrats and put them in touch with the forces of the further left that traditionally stay far away from the Democratic Party.

5) Even if Sanders conducted a purely safe state campaign focusing only on deep blue and red states like California or Texas, he could theoretically win millions of votes. Obama won California with 7.8 million votes against Romney’s 4.8 million; if Sanders got 2.5 million of those votes, he would be almost half-way to 5% and still not sway the Electoral College outcome. In Texas, all of Obama’s 3.3 million votes could have gone to a third party and it would not have made one whit of difference on the Electoral College map. A Sanders safe state campaign map would be the obverse of the traditional Democratic-Republican strategy: avoid campaigning in the swing states at all costs and campaign like hell everywhere else. Red states of the Deep South would be prime targets of such a real red campaign. The “don’t waste your vote” mantra that typically kills any third-party insurgent’s chances in Sanders’ case could be reversed and used against the two parties since voting Democrat in a state like Texas is the very definition of a wasted vote and the surplus 1 million-2 million Democratic votes in states like New York and California are also wasted since they contribute nothing to the Electoral College outcome. By contrast, every vote for Sanders would concretely contribute to him winning 5% of the national electorate.

If Sanders runs, the Green Party should endorse him immediately so he has ballot access in 44 states (their activists can use his fame to get on the ballot in the remaining six). The myriad of tiny socialist groups that piss in the wind every four years by ritualistically putting up presidential candidates to compete with one another for 0.01% of the electorate should instead endorse Sanders so 1) voters are presented with a united left ticket and 2) every left vote goes towards the strategic goal of winning federal matching funds in 2020.

If Sanders runs, he’ll be following the lead of Sawant and Seattle Socialist Alternative who dared to occupy the vote, blazed a trail for others to follow, and opened the way for the real red revival in this country that Sanders calls a “political revolution.”

Vanguard indeed.

  • brendan campisi

    Bernie Sanders is no kind of Marxist, ‘pragmatist’ or otherwise. He’s a
    social democrat. He seems radical because the U.S. has never had a
    successful social democratic movement. I don’t say this to attack him,
    just to be accurate.

    • cettel

      That is correct; and the statement made here that he’s a “Marxist” (which necessarily means an enemy of democracy and a champion of “the dictatorship of the proletariat” (as Marx called his goal) shows that the author of this article is an enemy to Bernie Sanders and to what he represents, which is democratic socialism, in the Scandanavian mold.
      If this article represents this website, then they should go to hell, as far as any progressive person is concerned; because: the core of progressivism is a deep commitment to democracy. We’re opposed to both fascism and communism.

      • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

        As a “historian” you seem to have no clue of the context within which Marx coined the phrase “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” You seem to insist, unlike even Buffet, that revolutionary class struggle has no place in a “democracy.” It appears that you consider the duopoly based electoral system in the US to not be “undemocratic,” or for that matter not dictatorial?

        I think you might as well march yourself and your “progressivism” straight of to your own classist hell.

        • brendan campisi

          Gotta love bourgeois liberals who think they’re ‘socialists’ even when they hate the idea of worker’s power.

  • Brian D Powers

    Bernie is a smart guy. He isn’t going to run for Pres as a spoiler. And he will mop the floor with anyone outside of Elizabeth Warren in a primary. The Clinton Dynasty must remain a corporate fantasy. This country is leaning about what real progress is about. Buh bye blue dogs.

    • Pete Glosser

      Bernie Sanders is Obama with a pinkish tinge. It’s helpful that he has been heard to utter the “s” word, but he is only useful as a figure in opposition. In power, he would be no more socialist than the French Socialist Party.

      There must be a socialist movement that is capable of wielding power either within the so-called constitution or against it. Electing a president in the absence of such a movement–even if it were possible, which it probably is not–would be futile.

      To the extent that the Sawant election paves the way for a power-holding and power-wielding workers’ movement, it is a good thing.

      To the extent that Sanders has chipped away at the tabu surrounding the word “socialism,” Sanders is a good thing.

      Let’s just not get carried away.

      BTW: It isn’t a good thing that Bernie would never be a socialist like Debs. It’s a damning thing. And this says nothing about the pros and cons of Debs himself as a socialist leader who perhaps didn’t go far enough.

  • Red Philly

    Full disclosure; I’m not a member of Socialist Alternative. I work with the 15 Now campaign in Philly. I think I can say with some confidence that Socialist Alternative doesn’t consider itself the “vanguard.”

    It seems to me this article is skewed towards an electoralist perspective. Elections are a tactic, but not the only one. I would think that the Socialist Alternative folks would agree that a class orientation and mass political struggle are just as crucial to success as any election.

    Kshama’s election got a lot of folks on the left excited about the possibility of an electoral road to socialism, but they miss the point of her campaign; which wasn’t so much about winning as about mobilizing working people.

    I’d like to propose a different set of rules rules–

    Orient to and try to lead the struggles of the oppressed and exploited. The left has to talk to someone besides themselves.

    Elections are only a tactic. Mass struggles of working people in their own interests are crucial. Elections and mass struggles must be linked.

    Political independence from the capitalists is fundamental.

    Politics are local, yes, but they are international too. Capitalism is a world system and has to be fought on a world scale as well as locally.

    • redgeek

      Living in Seattle, but not a member of Socialist Alternative, I’d say you’re right on most of this.
      Sawant’s success is due to momentum from Occupy, movement by SEIU (of all unions) for $15 in Seatac (artificial city around the regional airport) and other movements that Socialist Alternative smartly oriented the campaign around. (Support from a local weekly newspaper that was disgusted with a few of the lamer Democrats helped as well, especially in Sawant’s first run for a State senator’s seat.)
      Seattle’s electoral success is due as much to the movements currently happening. And so far SA and Sawant are contributing back to movement success – and that’s what it’s all about.
      I have to admit I’ve been dubious about Socialist Alternative’s previous work in movements (focused more on typical vanguardist newspaper selling and recruiting rather than actual support of the movement) but the one thing that the article gets right is that they are using this campaign as a vanguard for the struggle in Seattle.

  • Jason S.

    Good piece. A few minor criticisms.

    I don’t think the I.S. saw itself as “America’s only Bolsheviks” — at least not for very long. And it did create two union-reform efforts which still exist today and still matter: TDU (yes, not by themselves) and Labor Notes. So, credit where credit is due.

    Brendan is right — if Sanders is a Marxist he hides it rather well. I’m glad he’s in the Senate — and I doubt that a bona fide Marxist could get elected Senator in 2014 — but let’s not look at him through rose-colored glasses.

    We do need more socialists running in elections as open socialists with the intent to win. Elections aren’t everything but they obviously matter and they can assist in building a socialist movement that’s genuinely “grassroots.” How far we can go in a country with a declining labor movement is an open question. But yes, two, three, many Kshama Sawants.

  • Adam S.

    I really, really, really like Ksama. I do have bit of a quibble with Lenin and Lenin’s legacy. We have as big a problem in the United States with State Secrecy as we do capitalism. I believe the fatal flaw Lenin had that ended up dooming the future Soviet Union was their choice to keep a lot of secrets from the Soviet people. I believe that all the state secrecy was the root of all the corruption that formed in the Soviet system. I think were gonna have to move forward with lot more transparency in our political processes to root out all the corruption in our political processes.

    • FT

      Exactly, you’re thinking of Cultural Revolution in your last point. No need to re-invent the wheel from a century ago.

    • maxime1793

      I don’t think the Soviet system could be considered especially corrupt.

      • Pete Glosser

        You certainly didn’t get that idea by studying Soviet history.

    • Pete Glosser

      Re Leninism:

      Every time I read the World Socialist Web, however I may disagree with some of what is said, I am impressed anew by the force of anguage and the insights of what they unsmilingly refer to as “classical marxism”–sectarian nightmare that their party appears to be.

      There is no doubt that–in terms of what they say and the analysis behind it–they are preferable in their purism to, e.g., the egregious Louis Proyect, whose “unrepentant [professedly ‘non-sectarian’] Marxist” stance boils down to nothing but the painful inferiority complex and smoldering resentment of a failed graduate student who sees everything ultimately in personal terms..

      The great tradedy of Proyect’s life, in his own eyes, is that his life story never became the subject of a published comic book. Need one say more?

      As a performer, Proyect is always good for a laugh. At his best he can be highly informative, though he seldom enlightens. But imagine what would happen if someone ruled by his sort of motiveless malice became a powerful leader of a powerful socialist cause. Would we be any better off than with the sectarian “lenins” of the self-anointed “classical” tradition?

      And what would be our fate under the leadership of the rebarbative Platypus Society, who so curiously resemble the disciples of Ayn Rand ? Again, after Pham Binh, now absent from the scene, who could join or place any confidence in ISO? One could go on.

      The goal is political power, but anyone who understands this should also fear what will happen if that power falls into the wrong hands.

      For now at least, with those like Kashant who have a strong socialist perspective but put themselves to the test of public office, we can hope for a genuinely new approach, even if it cannot be the only approach.

      • Pete Glosser

        various typos, sorry: “anguage” for “language,” “tradedy” for tragedy, a double period. My apologies.

  • http://www.williamsstudiogallery.com William C Crain

    A terrific piece of writing. Sooooooooooooo SO!!!!!!!! What a refreshing light you shine on these cricial times in need of crucial strategies.
    The brilliancy and awareness of conflating Principles with Tactics should be posted in every socialist meeting hall. Its easy to be dedicated to a fault What’s at stake what’s to be gained. i’m for full Right of Return and Equal citizenship in one state, Free Palestine but do i care if a Palestinian is in a tornament with a Israeli? not really.
    I think this succinct comprehensive piece of work will be a seminal pc on the state of Socialism in the US today. (LIKE)
    Berni is soft on Justice. and if he runs he’s got my vote. But when we were after him to put his weight behind the Impeachment of the Bush Crime Family he went all Liberal on us. He has no stomach for Justice. A concept all societies depend on. We would not be here today if Impeachment was on the provebial ‘table’ (hang Nancy before Bush) and Bernie had plenty of push and compelling data to stand up for the Constitution where it demands such action 6 times.
    Will he cut to the chase on Wall St crashing our Economy though in fact it was crashed by writing the Wars off the Books (go shopping) and was bound to crash because that’s what Capitalism does… Bernie, will you prosecute ?
    i think i can count on him not going all Jingo Bellicose on us should he win ~ and i hope the scenario herein comes to fruition.

  • Veronica

    this is a great piece…saving for later

  • Pingback: chanel pas cher()

  • inoilfieldhell

    The Republicans are already moving to take away voting rights to the working classes, minorities, and students. We will keep privatizing everything until we have a real Red Revolt, where voting consists of throwing a bricks or swinging a clubs. The 1% will not give up power until there is blood on the streets. The longer we wait, the more entrenched the 1% will become and the bloodier it will be. Instigating revolution now will save many lives, regardless the casualties.

    • John Williams

      Assuming that revolution will come all by itself if given the right “spark” is almost like saying that the invisible hand of marketplace will inevitably guide the economy. Laissez faire; laissez passer; la révolution va d’elle-même.

      The success of Nazism in destroying the possibility of socialist revolution in Weimar Germany should warn us that revolution is not inevitable and its outcome not fated like the salvation or damnation of souls under Calvinism.

      Austerity in Europe so far is leading to the increasingly worryingly to the popularity of far-right populism (Marie le Pen) or outright Nazi-style fascism (cf. Greece and the Golden Dawn). Where is the inevitably triumphant Red Revolt in all this? It seems that a Brown Revolt is at least as likely. Nor would it be the first time that the people in a particular place and at a particular time have embraced precisely the cause that is likeliest to prove their undoing.

      If the history of the twentieth century proves anything, it proves that revolutions require planning, theory, organization, campaigns of publicity–in short, all the tedious crap that makes conventional bourgeois politics so boring. That–and constant mortal danger to boot. There simply isn’t any escape.

  • Pingback: burberry sac 脿 main()

  • Pingback: Homepage()

  • Pingback: Christian Louboutin Red Sole Tall Boots 2014()

Previous post:

Next post: