"Even though we had slavery...our families were strong our country had a direction." Roy Moore, US Politician 2017 |
Comrades
this is a discussion document from Sean O’Torain and Richard Mellor, co-founders
of Facts For Working People Blog and Think Tank. Facts For Working People (FFWP) seeks to be a
Think Tank for working people that can help workers like ourselves clarify
issues and positions, strategy and tactics, that are related to the struggle of
the working class against capitalism.
Those of us around the FFWP, whoever we are, whatever we are, determinedly struggle against the danger of having ideas that are set in stone. Unlike in the past when we thought we knew everything, through defeats and setbacks we came to realize we did not know everything and as a result are now in a position to know more. That is of course, as long as we face openly and state openly, our mistakes. As Joyce said, mistakes if faced up to are portals of discovery. We have principles but we are against repeating parrot fashion, without a thought, the old formulae. We are putting our names to to this statement as the other comrades who are on our listserve and who come on our FFWP conference calls have not had time to read it and give their opinions. We are responsible for its content.
We want all those people around and involved with FFWP to have a chance to openly discuss this issue and express their agreements or disagreements in an open public discussion. We hope that others who are not involved with FFWP but who read our Blog and who will read this on our Blog will also express their views, agreements or disagreements. We hope for an open public discussion. We encourage people to add their comments in the comments section below.
Those of us around the FFWP, whoever we are, whatever we are, determinedly struggle against the danger of having ideas that are set in stone. Unlike in the past when we thought we knew everything, through defeats and setbacks we came to realize we did not know everything and as a result are now in a position to know more. That is of course, as long as we face openly and state openly, our mistakes. As Joyce said, mistakes if faced up to are portals of discovery. We have principles but we are against repeating parrot fashion, without a thought, the old formulae. We are putting our names to to this statement as the other comrades who are on our listserve and who come on our FFWP conference calls have not had time to read it and give their opinions. We are responsible for its content.
We want all those people around and involved with FFWP to have a chance to openly discuss this issue and express their agreements or disagreements in an open public discussion. We hope that others who are not involved with FFWP but who read our Blog and who will read this on our Blog will also express their views, agreements or disagreements. We hope for an open public discussion. We encourage people to add their comments in the comments section below.
We have been posing for some time the following question: Why has the left failed to put down roots in the working class? We are confining our thoughts in this post to the left in the US at this stage. When we speak of the left here we include those within organizations which consider themselves revolutionary socialist and also and more importantly the tens and tens of thousands who consider themselves revolutionary socialists who are not in any organization, many of whom who were at one time or another in a revolutionary organization. There are also the hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, in the US who in polls "favor socialism over capitalism" but we will leave these aside for the moment. Not that they are unimportant but it is easier for us to address the issue we wish to address by focusing on those who consider themselves revolutionary socialists.
We also ask Comrades to think about the ideas we raise in the context of the most conscious anti-racist anti-sexist workers, especially African American women workers in Alabama and throughout the US. How would the ideas we raise here, the position we advocate here be seen amongst these sectors?
So to take the plunge. The Alabama elections. The result was a setback for Trump and Trumpism. It was a victory for the rising women's movement. It was a victory for the anti-racist forces in the country. And whether it knows it or not, and most of the working class do not yet know it, it was a victory for the working class. If this does not sound correct consider if the creature Moore had won. The extreme right, the racist and sexist reactionaries, the “take the US back to slavery” crowd as Moore just about said, their tails would be up. There would be crosses burning, lighted torches being carried as there was in Charlottesville, racist, sexist louts and thugs marching.
Instead, the effect of the result of this election has been the opposite. These forces have been set back. This was demonstrated by the sight of the extreme reactionary degenerate, ex Harvard, ex Goldman Sachs, Trump crony, Bannon, running from the media with his mouth shut jumping into his big chauffeur driven SUV and fleeing into the night. On the other hand the effect that the Jones victory has had on the anti-Trump forces has been to raise their heads and add impetus to the anti Trump resistance. We believe this is indisputable. You only have to look around you and listen. So what conclusions for revolutionaries? But first the objective processes behind the defeat of Moore.
The short article on the Blog on the Alabama result made some points concerning why this defeat of Moore came about. The changed conditions in the economies of the Southern states is important, particularly the increased industrialization, a result of which has been the increase in numbers and diversity of the working class, and along with this the increased consciousness and power of women workers, especially African American women workers who turned out in massive numbers to put down Moore.
It is possible that we can say today that the most conscious section of the US working class at this time is the African American women workers. FFWP has been insisting for years now that one important feature of the class relations world wide is the increased power and struggles of women as they entered the paid workforce in their hundreds of millions. Our blog has argued that any organization that does not recognize this and look critically at its policies and organizational approach, both external and internal, with this in mind, will play no positive role of any significance. It should also be noted that as part of the rising of the women against the sexual predatory culture we are now seeing increased movements to organize in unions from the mainly women workers in the hotels and service industries. We have been right to stress the need to organize into democratic fighting unions as the way to fight the sexual predatory culture. Unfortunately most of the left as far as we can see have not done this. In part, this is a result of most of the left being swept along the road of identity politics and letting the class divide and the class struggle fall behind or even be ignored in the battle against the predatory culture.
In the article on the Blog on the Alabama election result we have pointed to another factor that is not insignificant. That is where the more strategic section of the bourgeois in Alabama through their mouthpiece Shelby, the senior Senator, came out and openly opposed Moore. We intend to write more on this issue. This development is important in relation to the future of the Trump regime and the most strategic section of the bourgeois. It looks like the Republicans are building to remove Mueller. If they do so, this will throw US bourgeois politics and the bourgeois institutions into further crisis. If they do not, we believe it highly likely that Mueller will expose crimes by Trump and there will be a move to bring him down. This will also mean a deepening of the political crisis of US capitalism and a weakening of its institutions. Either way, US bourgeois politics heads deeper into crisis. But this is another, though related story.
We are putting this statement on our Blog for anybody to see. We realize this will give ammunition to sectarian groupings and individuals to slander us as supporters of the Democrats. But as we say we do not look over our shoulders at the petit bourgeois sectarian left, we look over our shoulders at the working class, especially the most thinking conscious and active sections of the working class. We hope that by putting this statement on our public Blog that we can develop our Blog further as a type of informal Think Tank for working people. There is a form of intimidation of thought among much of the left. This paralyses the left. This freezes the thought of the left. The authors of this statement speak of our thought being unshackled compared to when we were, in and later expelled from, left organizations.
We are strongly committed to open discussion and to expressing what we consider our mistakes and the mistakes of the left, we will not be intimidated, we will not look over our shoulder at what the sectarian left might think and say. We consider our ideas in the light of what the most conscious and thinking sections of the working class might think and say.
So to the meat of this post: What should serious revolutionaries have said and done in the run up to the Alabama election? In thinking about this let us not just consider this question in the context of just being a few people, or even just having a Blog with a not insignificant following, but think about it from the point of view of either trying to build a base in Alabama or even more so if we had a base in Alabama which could influence thousands of people. In other words, consider if we had, or if there already existed, a small workers party in Alabama which say could influence 5% to 10% of the vote. Richard one of the two signatories of this statement when he stood for Oakland City council many years ago won 6% of the vote. So what about the election in Alabama?
We wish to pose this. We may be wrong and if so we wish to be corrected through comradely reasoned exchange of ideas. Whether revolutionary socialists had a base in Alabama or not we are considering that in this election if we had not taken the position to defeat Moore, we would have been ignored or if we had a base we would have lost that base. Or if we tried to get a base in the future we would have always been asked what position did we take in this election. This is where this issue is related to why the left have not put down roots in the working class. We know there are other issues, the objective situation, the sectarianism, the ultra leftism, the opportunism of the left, that has made it difficult for the left to put down roots, but there is also this issue of ignoring the real genuine movements and struggles and consciousness of the working class, of different layers of the working class and how events effect the class balance of forces and the mass consciousness.
We wish to propose that it would not have been enough to just say we were against Moore for all the reasons we are familiar with and we are sure our readers would agree with. We believe that we would have had to go further and call for a vote for Jones. There we have taken the plunge. Call for a vote for a Democrat? Yes that is what we are saying. We do not think we would have been able to gain the ear of the most conscious and especially the African American workers in this race if we had not said this. We do not believe these workers would have listened us to. But not only that, we believe we would have to have called for a vote for Jones, we would have to have recognized what just about every thinking worker knew and especially the African American workers knew and especially the African American women and some white women workers knew, and that is that Jones winning would push the balance of forces in the country further to the side of the anti Trump movement.
A Moore victory would have raised the heads of the Trump coming movement after the election of Trump in 2016. Jones winning has strengthened the anti Trump movement. One of us was with their companion on the night of the election. She hates Trump and all he stands for with a powerful rage. When he said that he would not rule out Jones winning. She said: “I do not want to hear it, I do not want to get my hopes up”. Then the results began to come in. And as Jones crept up and into the lead and then won, her mood was transformed. Her hopes were then up! The anti Trump movements' hopes are now also up. These movements have been strengthened.
Having said this, it is necessary to go further. It is necessary to add to the position of a vote for Jones. It would have been necessary not just to say vote for Jones, to come out and vote for Jones, but it would have been necessary, yes essential to have explained clearly that while we would have called for a vote for Jones we did not do so because we supported the capitalist Democratic Party, we do not, but we called for a vote for Jones because we wanted to deal a blow to the Trump forces and add fuel to the anti Trump movement.
This is how our vote would have been cast. We oppose the capitalist Republican and Democratic parties and will always do so. We would have explained that we were calling for a vote for Jones, as this election was extremely significant in terms of the balance of forces in the country. Vote for Jones because a defeat for Moore would mean increasing the strength and morale of the anti Trump forces. Vote for Jones in order to make the ground more favorable for the struggles of the working class, the anti racist and anti sexist forces. However. And it is an essential “However”. We do not leave it there.
While
advocating a vote for Jones, and if we had forces working for a vote for
Jones, we would have explained on what basis we were doing so, that we were doing
so on a certain basis. We would have explained that calling for a vote for
Jones did not mean we were supporting the capitalist Democratic Party but as we
have already said we would have been doing so to improve the ground on which
the rising women's movement, the rising anti racist movement, and the rising
workers movement that is inevitable in the period ahead, are fighting and will
fight.
And along with this and an essential part of this while advocating a vote for Jones to defeat Moore and his crew, and to make the ground more favorable for the struggle of the working class and all oppressed minorities and people, we would have advocated and built for the following alternative:
And along with this and an essential part of this while advocating a vote for Jones to defeat Moore and his crew, and to make the ground more favorable for the struggle of the working class and all oppressed minorities and people, we would have advocated and built for the following alternative:
Build an alliance/united front against the capitalist agenda using mass direct action tactics. Organize the unorganized using the tactics, which built the unions in the 1930’s------mass occupations, mass confrontations with the state and anti union forces on the streets. Build a mass workers party by going to the rank and file in the unions and the workplaces and our communities mobilizing support for resolutions to this end.
And equally essential: Build as part of all these struggles a revolutionary socialist current based on the ideas and principles of revolutionary socialism. And do so in a non-sectarian manner. That is, throughout this entire process we recruit and build a revolutionary current with its roots in the working class. We believe this approach properly explained would be understood and supported by every thinking worker.
At this stage we anticipate outraged cries from some left groups and individuals that we are committing the sin of sins of supporting a Democrat. We will not be intimidated by such calls. We put our position out here for discussion. We think that serious workers and activists will give it thought. As well as anticipating the cries of horror that we as revolutionary socialists would advocate voting for a Democrat we also believe that there are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of thinking workers out there who hate the Democrats, see their pro capitalist role but who also see the dilemma that existed in Alabama.
We anticipate that these serious workers will give consideration to our position and we believe many will support the position we advocate here.
It is of course possible that we may be wrong. We hope for feed back from readers. So please let us have your views. Part of the change in the way we the undersigned work is we have broken from the method of so much of the left where mistakes were never acknowledged and where a culture existed in which everybody was afraid to test out ideas. We realize that we are testing an idea here; we think what we advocate is correct. We recognize that testing an idea always involves risk. But as Lenin wrote quoting the Russian revolutionary Chernyshevsky, “Historical action is not the pavement of Nevsky Prospekt.”, a main thoroughfare in Leningrad.
The revolution is not that. It involves risks, involves necks been stuck out. It is worth quoting Chernyevsky in full. He actually wrote: “The path of history is not paved like Nevsky Prospekt; it runs across fields, either dusty or muddy, and cuts through swamps or forest thickets. Anyone who fears being covered with dust or muddying his boots, should not engage in social activity.” *
Having said this, we trust that class conscious workers and activists will approach this issue seriously and with the aim not to score points but to help clarify strategies and tactics for the class struggle. And we trust ourselves to consider all ideas seriously and if we are convinced we are mistaken to admit openly and in a comradely fashion that we are wrong. At this stage we do not think we are. In some cases when comradely differences remain we allow objective circumstances determine what worked and what didn’t, what would work and what would not. It is a serious mistake to never change one’s mind in the face of changed conditions and experiences.
We would just like to add one point, or rather to re-make one point a little sharper. Imagine if the revolutionary left had had a party in Alabama where it could have won 5 or 10 percent of the vote and it had run a candidate or advocated a write in for its candidate and this allowed Moore in. That party would have never recovered. It would never be known as a revolutionary socialist party, it would forever be known as the "let Moore in party". The stain would have been indelible. And this would not only have very seriously damaged that party but it would have seriously damaged all socialist parties and all socialists. One of the reasons we think this is so important is that in the future there will most likely be opportunities for the left in various places to form sizable parties, especially as the trade union leadership will not move until they are forced to by a movement from below.
And in such cases where small left parties would develop such tactical issues as this one would mean the difference between such a party having a future and not having a future, would mean the difference between all the work of the members of that small party being wiped out or being maintained and remain in a position to be built upon.
We hope comrades will let us have their opinions. And we hope that it will be possible to have a sober comradely discussion on the issues we have raised here.
Comradely,
Sean O'Torain. Richard Mellor.
12-15-17
12-15-17
*
V.I. Lenin, Letter to
American Workers
Comrades, Thank you for your analysis and perspective. I largely agree, with some minor quibbles. I, like you, believe that working women of color, and particularly young black women have the most potential of being a significant revolutionary force. Your analysis of movement to defeat the racist misogyny of Moore is correct. The black community entered in to the special election with no illusion that the Democratic candidate will be any better on the real issues that that they and their fellow workers face. I believe that the turnout in communities of color would have only been a point or two lower without the revelation of Moore's pedophilia. But once it was out in the open it was the conscious black community that realized there was a path to defeating the Racist child-abuser. I'm pretty certain that it was women who forced the Jones camp to bring in outside help and holding Jones hand in the communities of color.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to your groups position on running a "left" candidate I see FFWP's stance against, as the correct one. In the French General Election left was correct to support Macron in the runoff against LePen after Melachon was narrowly defeated in the preliminary. The former Greek Finance minister put it 'Vote Macron on Sunday and be prepared to wage war against Macron on Monday." Within weeks of Macron's landslide victory his popularity was down to 30% in the face of working class opposition to his program.
I support what both the DSA and Socialist Alt. has done with their US electoral Programs.
Hopefully, your post will spur a comprehensive discussion.
ReplyDeleteperhaps you are correct. since you seem to look on Lenin with favor, consider that through most of their existence, the Bolsheviks and the RSDLP were a very small sliver of the Russian working class & peasantry. even after the 1905 revolution, there were less than 10,000 members in a working class estimated from 4.5 to 10 million. bolshevik influence was magnified by their role in the formation of trade & industrial unions.
ReplyDeletethere were no elections to the executive offices of the Tsarist govt but there were elections to the Duma in which the Bolsheviks won fewer representatives than their factional rivals, the Mensheviks. neither the Bolsheviks or Mensheviks used their small numbers to throw their support behind "moderate" pro-Tsarist parties. our ...socialists, communists, anarchists.. problem is not that there aren't bourgeois elections, there are plenty but that we don't have much traction among workers in unions or communities and have won one (?) city council election in recent years. is that problem solved by dissolving ourselves into the "progressive" wing of the our class enemies?
even in 1917, the Bolshevks often had to swim against public opinion. China Mieville's "October" recounts that this happened after the July Days fiasco. Bolsheviks were ostracized and assaulted at what had been and w'd be again strongholds of the Bolsheviks.
perhaps you're playing up the privilege of sharing current illusions & later saying to workers, shiiiitttt! we was wrong right along with you on voting Demi-can, after all that other guy was a racist pedophile. not much to take credit for.
and as comrades of DSA & SA have shown, it's a slippery slope... vote for Sanders (the good guy) in the primaries and you wind up voting for Hillary in November. though i'm not a Leninist, i do admire his intransigence (principles). as he told his "opponents" in What is to be Done?, you're free to go into the swamp...only let go my hand. (paraphrased)
G De Leon's response is exactly the thinking we have broken from. Has he read the piece? He reads this blog regularly and must know we didn't support Sanders and don't advocate for the Democratic Party, that's clear in the piece yet he is compelled by years of an incorrect sectarian approach that has brought nothing but isolation from the working class and a left that has failed to build a lasting left current within the workers' movement. Read the section of the piece in bold, and our Alternative to Sanders https://weknowwhatsup.blogspot.com/p/sanders-our-alternative.html
ReplyDeleteIt would have been useful had De leon thought about the examples we have raised were we present in Alabama, were a small party or formation to have existed in Alabama how would his position of exclusion have affected the growth and development of that party? Would his position have strengthened it among the working class, black folks, women and whites determined to stop a known racist and sexual predator.
Reading De leon's response reminds me of Trotsky's comment "The ones who are most prone to lose their identity in the opportunistic milieu are yesterday's ultimatists"
I read a report from the Pew Research Center about how adults 18 to 34 are doing, compared to 1960. Today their medium income is $15,000, and in 1960 it was equivalent to $27,300. Also 60% were in marriages or living with partners, while today just 31%. I mention this because ideas are important, numbers and facts, and detailed plans for improvement are crucial to persuade. Here's the source: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/24/4-the-job-market-and-young-adult-living-arrangements/ -- and it relates to this really interesting article at Huffpost: Millenials are Screwed -- http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/poor-millennials/
ReplyDeleteI read the Michael Roberts articles here at FFWP, they are replete with details. I get tired of fuzzy thinking about how bad things are and how much we need revolution, without any sense of detail. Too often FFWP just shakes its fist in the air, metaphorically. There are plenty of revolutionary ideas out there, I prefer Gar Alperovitz' analysis because he understands gradual transformation and practical application. The better-off half of America is doing pretty well. Read my blog, Economics Without Greed, http://benL8.blogspot.com. Half of all households are making more than $59,000 a year. If you look into the USCensus figures a family of four now has a median income of over $91,036, a family of three over $76,936. a household of 2 over $65,627, a household of 1 over $30,367. The system is not working great, but for half its OK if not great. For the younger adults it is not working at all. For blacks and browns and Asians, not working at all. For all it is spirallng down. Some 44% of adults can't pay off an emergency expense of $400 within a 30 day period. If I continue to read FFWP it will be because of great journalism, which happens at this site too. I enjoy the articles, the candor and the progressive outlook.
Ben perhaps you might watch that short video where that management professor describes Marx’s labor theory of value and capitalist crisis. Also on our blogs FB page I have put up an excellent piece by Andrew Kiliman on the same subject. These contradict your and Alperovitz views that capitalism can be reformed to produce for social need and more importantly capitalists can transform it. Alperitz who has functioned as an advisor to the capitalist class and presidents and yourself do not see the working class as the force for change in society and fail to see that capitalism will destroy life as we know it.
DeleteComrade Krahbedad, I also hope this will lead to a comprehensive discussion on this issue. I hope that we will not be frustrated in this by any unwillingness amongst socialists and activists to explore ideas in a non sectarian way. Or by any tendency to be trapped in old mechanical formulations and positions. We the authors of this statement on the Alabama election think we are on balance correct on the position we advocate. But we are very anxious to hear other peoples opinions. A healthy socialist movement will only be built if activists are prepared to openly discuss and exchange ideas. Prepared to examine our own ideas. Prepared to accept it if our ideas do not hold up when faced with other ideas and events and to do so openly. FFWP stand for a healthy democratic culture in the socialist movement. We have our weekly conference calls, our weekly Think Tank for working people every Saturday. Please if you are interested in joining this, any activist interested in doing this , contact us at our Blog address which is at the bottom of the article on this issue on the blog. Thank you. Sean O'Torain.
ReplyDeleteHi Sean Throne, Richard Mellor,
ReplyDeleteI've read your article on Alabama, the one where you say that it was necessary to support a vote for Jones, the Democrat vs Moore. And yes it was a small victory, but the victory was that we wouldn't roll back the clock to slavery--not one where we would advance headstrong towards revolution. It was a hollow victory. It was the victory of coming within a knife edge towards death and avoiding it. Do we support a vote not to die? Ofcourse, but if you replace "Jones" with "Hillary" others will see the tight rope that you two are walking on.
Richard and Thorn write, "And equally essential: Build as part of all these struggles a revolutionary socialist current based on the ideas and principles of revolutionary socialism. And do so in a non-sectarian manner."
But there is no revolutionary current in the US worth tipping a hat to. What current? There's more like a few molecules that are disinterested in attaching themselves to each other. You claim it must be non-sectarian, but you egged on Les Evenchick with his utterly sectarian post by liking it. You say that it needs to have roots in the working class, but it cannot even build roots with the forces closest. Do you now understand the contradiction of calling to support the Democratic Party tactically while ignoring the need to call for revolutionaries to unite strategically? You can imagine a working class party and what it could do in such a situation. We don't have a working class party of millions today. We do not even have a revolutionary organization today with the few remaining Marxists in the country worth looking up in the phone book.
We are posting this on behalf of Rust Gilbert. Moderators
ReplyDeleteDear Richard and Sean
There’s no doubt the election in Alabama last week was significant.
The defeat of Moore thanks in part to GOP Sen. Shelby’s refusal to
endorse GOP nominee Moore signifies that the disarray surrounding the
trump administration is growing into a serious crisis for the ruling
class. As well, the upsurge of black and women voters is another
indication that resistance to the reaction personified by the trump
administration is growing, even in the South.
In the context of this election revolutionaries needed to find a clear
and unmistakable way to show they were on the side of this resistance.
But we can’t muffle our main message which is the strategy for
building working class power involves breaking with the Democrats.
Supporting Jones would inevitably result in attenuating the urgency we
have to give that idea. No matter how loudly you shout “Vote Jones
Without Illusions”, the fact remains few would vote for Jones if they
didn’t have one or another illusion.
Without endorsing Jones, revolutionaries should have joined with
Jones’ supporters in practical actions to counter the voter
suppression efforts made by Moore’s camp. Revolutionaries could say
“we don’t think you’re going to get what you want by supporting this
conservative Democrat, but we absolutely support your right to vote
and have your vote counted”. In this way you could ally with Black and
women activists, at least the ones who vote for someone like Moore
holding their noses, without undercutting your basic class position on
the two party duopoly.
Revolutionaries also should have worked to persuade white workers who
were inclined to support Moore that no matter how much they feel
betrayed and ignored by the Democratic Party it’s not in their class
interests to support reactionaries like Trump and More. The aim here
would not be to get them to vote for Jones but to abstain.
Revolutionaries would find allies in the trade unions for this
approach.
Blacks and women were absolutely correct to see Moore’s election as
something that would intensify the threats to their vital interests.
It’s understandable, given the weakness of the revolutionary left,
that so many would vote for a Democrat, even a conservative one who
has just proclaimed his eagerness to work with the GOP on issues.
Finding principled, practical ways to ally with fighters in "the
resistance" who still have illusions that somehow the Democrats are a
meaningful obstacle to reaction is a problem we are going to face
repeatedly in the next few years. Giving ground to that illusion will,
in the end, do us – and them – no good.
Rust Gilbert
G de Leon wrote: “neither the Bolsheviks or Mensheviks used their small numbers to throw their support behind "moderate" pro-Tsarist parties.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think this is accurate. In Russia in the early 1900s, the Kadets were the Constitutional Democrats, the liberal-monarchist bourgeois party. The Mensheviks often blocked with them and voted for their candidates. I don’t know whether the Bolsheviks ever voted for them, but Lenin allowed for the possibility of a tactical vote – in order to keep out the Black Hundreds, the Russian fascists and pogromists.
“When a socialist really believes in a Black-Hundred danger and is sincerely combating it – he votes for the liberals without any bargaining ... For instance, it may happen that at a second ballot in Europe a Black-Hundred danger arises when the liberal obtains, say, 8,000 votes, the Black-Hundred representative or reactionary, 10,000, and the socialist 3,000. If a socialist believes that the Black-Hundred danger is a real danger to the working class, he will vote for the liberal. We have no second ballot in Russia, but we may get a situation analogous to a second ballot in the second stage of the elections. If out of 174 electors, say, 86 are of the Black Hundreds, 84 Cadets and 4 socialists, the socialists must cast their votes for the Cadet candidate, and so far not a single member of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party has questioned this.” – Lenin, “The St. Petersburg Elections and the Hypocrisy of the Thirty-One Mensheviks,”
January 20 (February 2), 1907; https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/jan/20.htm
Due to my health I will have to leave responding to some more of these points in this very important discussion for a day or two. Just let me say here thank you to Walter Drum for his excellent piece and his quote from Lenin. I can anticipate that some will say that yes but that was the fascists and this was therefore correct. But the point is that Lenin has here applied the principle that on certain occasions revolutionaries would vote for the "lesser of two evils", that is accepted and did so decisively that on some occasions revolutionaries would vote for the lesser of two evils. With due respect to those who think that political struggle in the US can be reduced to no vote for the lesser of two evils and build a workers party will come up short. Such an approach is to leave out tactical considerations, balance of forces etc. It is to be un-dialectical. Let me pose a theoretical. Imagine an election in a state where two parties were running and one was pledged to ban all abortions and close all abortion facilities and the other was pledged to keep all abortion facilities open and in fact expand them, would the revolutionary forces, groups, individuals, stand by and say well we never vote for the lesser of two evils. If they did so then they could forget about getting a base amongst working class women, youth and in fact all advanced workers. Thank you Walter. Sean O'Torain.
ReplyDeleteI have been called a workerist by members of some self styled socialist groups. I have never voted Democratic, but I have been critical of the left as being or having a petit bourgeois culture. In 30 years I never ever had any assistance on the job or in the struggle against the policies of the union bureaucracy from any individual in the myriad of left organizations in my area. They were either too busy building a revolutionary party and how that works I don't know. The workers when they're ready will just leap in to their hands I guess, or they used the excuse the union officialdom would never do anything which is a failure to understand the power of the working class or learn from history. I hope we will have thinking workers contribute as well as those on the left that are looking to correct the failed methods of the past though this is welcome. Here is a quote from Lenin that seems to have enough respect for the working class that he can see the difference between sowing illusions by one's actions and strengthening the working class by tactically improving the conditions under which we fight.
ReplyDelete"The Anglo-French and American imperialist vultures “accuse” us of concluding an “agreement” with German imperialism. What hypocrites, what scoundrels they are to slander the workers’ government while trembling because of the sympathy displayed towards us by the workers of “their own” countries! But their hypocrisy will be exposed. They pretend not to see the difference between an agreement entered into by “socialists” with the bourgeoisie (their own or foreign) against the workers, against the working people, and an agreement entered into for the protection of the workers who have defeated their bourgeoisie, with the bourgeoisie of one national colour against the bourgeoisie of another colour in order that the proletariat may take advantage of the antagonisms between the different groups of bourgeoisie." Letter to American Workers 1918
Thank you Richard. I entirely agree. Sean O'Torain.
ReplyDeleteFor me this article posted is not controversial. it is blindingly obvious unless you live in a world removed from interaction with your fellow workers. When it comes to preventing the march of fascism you do what it takes, especially when there is a stark electoral choice as outlined clearly in the article. Those who confuse the issue with peripheral concerns fail to see the fascist wood from the ideological trees. Given this blog's high and proper regard for history we should look at one sobering example from the past. In Germany in the 1930's, when the mis-named National Socialist or NAZI forces were on the rise, there were those in the then sizeable Communist Party who absolutely opposed supporting the reformist Social Democrats in a united front against the rise of the far right. This ideological obstinacy of refusing to combine with those on the soft left led to an easy vicory for the NAZI's as the divided left allowed them march ahead until it was too late. The Communists, heavily influenced by Stalin's then ultra-left foreign policy, were instructed to interpret the politics of the social democrats as not being too dissimilar from the fascists!!
ReplyDeleteSo, fast forward to this month's electoral choice and effective showdown in Alabama, using the same ultra eft argument a latter day commmunist, applying that logic, would have strongly opposed a vote for the democratic candidate just to stop the fascist. To that ideologue, there is eternally not much of a difference between the Democrat and Republican. While this maybe true in a general sense, it is not true given the specifics of this particular case in Alabama. The racist reactionary had to be stopped. Full stop. Sticking to a historical and mechanical line about the proximity of Democrat politics to Trumpism is to dismiss the urgency of this election and what was at stake for white and non-white workers. Ultimately to get the ear of the working class you have to prove you have sound and practical judgement. It would have been correct to call for a vote for the Democrat in this case. Yes..sometimes you do have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and hold your nose! Its a classic case of taking a step backward, in order to take two forward! having done nd recommended what was necessary , you would now have the respect and ear of the workforce, especially the black workforce, to go and win the argument for the building of a united left alternative to Trumpism.