The absence of a political compass grounded in the material conditions of society might explain the perplexing phenomenon of the ongoing fascination on the part of some progressives and Leftists with the recent presidential candidacy of quasi-Ayn Randist congressman Ron Paul. What those activists fail to understand is that because some in the right-wing establishment and media dismiss Ron Paul for their own reasons does not mean that the Left should embrace him. On the contrary, Ron Paul represents the same basic capitalist interests as do the other bourgeois candidates, notwithstanding his occasional rhetorical and policy differences. That said, if Ron Paul can inadvertently sow discord within the right-wing, fine. But there is a qualitative difference between a Leftist passively accepting that and actively endorsing such a politician. As for Noam Chomsky, for all his value especially in pointing out some of the glaring hypocrisies of the practice of imperialism (under the rubric of "security" and "globalization") vis-a-vis its stated ("democratic") aims, he has also described himself as an anarchist, not a Marxist, and does not even refer to the prevailing political-economic system here as capitalism, preferring to call it "corporate mercantilism." But his political shortcomings and acknowledged ignorance of and indifference to fundamental Marxism and its actual development may not be readily apparent to the casual observer unfamiliar with his particular anarchistic anticommunist bias, notwithstanding his progressive stand on certain issues whatever his way of reasoning.

Indeed, while many non-Marxist Left and progressive intellectuals in the U.S. may accurately identify the exploitive and oppressive manifestations of capitalism and may even correctly attribute them to capitalism itself, just as often many are unable to then, logically, comprehend why a transformation to a communist socioeconomic formation is the only way to resolve the social contradictions that lie at the heart of such exploitation and oppression in capitalist society, a society based on class antagonisms. Many also express strong support for social justice and even social equality, but without realizing that we can only truly have both social justice and social equality when combined with social progress. And that cannot happen under an obsolescent (capitalist) socioeconomic formation. But then the non-CP Left political formations (or, more specifically, the largely petty-bourgeois youth-oriented "New Left") that emerged in the wake of the devastation wrought by McCarthyism and the broader post-WWII "Red Scare" were historically weak on the working class in general and the trade-union movement in particular. And that continues to this day, so much so that Thomas Frank in his interesting 2004 book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?," complained that "the Left" had turned its back on the labor movement, when in fact the class-conscious Left in the U.S. is deeply concerned about the working-class movement and the decline of organized labor, with many serious Leftists actively involved in reversing that decline and rebuilding the movement. Now, if Frank were referring to the "New Left" and its descendants, he would have a point. But in the context of his book, Frank is actually speaking of social liberals, not Leftists. This is more a case of a progressive author such as Thomas Frank not clearly distinguishing between liberals and Leftists, for while their causes sometimes superficially overlap, particularly on matters of civil rights and civil liberties, and with the egregious excesses of the "normal" functioning of mature monopoly-finance capitalism becoming apparent even to some who are not consciously anti-capitalist, there is a fundamental difference between the two, with the social liberals basically favoring some form of capitalism, and the Left some form of socialism. It is important to understand and draw this distinction if we are to organize a more effective coalition to oppose the Right while building the Left in order to advance the interests of the working class -- a coalition which, at present, would likely include some self-identified Democrats. Without such an understanding, too many on the Left end up angry at the Democratic Party by misunderstanding its nature and expecting it to be what it is not, for while it may be a party of workers, it is not a working-class party and never has been. Nowhere is this more evident than with the repeated failure of the Federal government over the past few decades to pass crucial labor law reform even when Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Moreover, the rising influence of the Clintonites within the Democratic Party signaled an even further move away from organized labor -- to the detriment of the working class and even the electoral fortunes of the Democratic Party. Indeed, at times, it appears as if the Democrats would rather lose an election than risk winning by explicitly raising the issue of class however much they are accused by the extreme right of doing just that. And this points up the problem of how much the Left can expect for the people from working with and for Democratic candidates knowing that there is every reason to believe that, once in office, they will by nature be inclined not to legislate or govern as they campaigned unless politically expedient to do so or unless forced by mass pressure to do so. Nevertheless, we know that the Democrats and the Republicans, while fundamentally committed to the capitalist state (notwithstanding the paranoiac rhetoric of "Tea Party" pseudo-populists and demagogic right-wing media personalities), are not an undifferentiated reactionary mass. And even though there is no reason to be believe that we on the Left can do with that party what the extreme Right has done with the Republicans (grafting a neo-Confederate limb onto a corporate stump but with national reach), the Democrats (particularly during an electoral campaign) can still be amenable to the legitimate demands of the people, if partly out of the interests of organizational survival as well as to co-opt some genuinely popular demands in order to prevent the rise of a truly Leftist mass movement that could effectively challenge the capitalists for political power. One of the main tasks, then, for the Left at present is to seek to limit the more collaborationist elements inside the Democratic Party while neutralizing the more reactionary and racist forces inside the Republican Party and its even more extreme "Tea Party" satellite, and at the same time seek to build a serious working-class-based Left organizationally independent of the Democratic Party. Organizational independence is key to prevent such a Left formation from being co-opted and reduced to little more than another fund- and vote-raising mechanism for the DNC, visible only during campaign season but devoid of any substantive policy influence. As part of this process, the Left has to build on significant struggles such as the Scott Walker recall movement and Occupy Wall Street -- both of which failed in their initial objectives but which remain valuable. Though OWS, for one, as yet lacks the programmatic principles of the CP as well as the kind of working-class base of the anti-Walker movement, it should not be summarily dismissed, as it still has the potential to represent a start -- if only a start -- of a mass progressive social and political movement, provided it does not get bogged down in lifestyle and ethno-centric politics, anarchist posturing and the kind of declassed ultra-democracy that tends to unscientifically regard all views as equally valid, or, like the anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle in 1999, it will fail to develop into a true mass people's movement.

However, the willingness of OWS to identify Wall Street as the people's enemy and to bravely take a stand against the capitalists and what they represent is important. Now, if the Marxist Left can work to bring the more narrowly-located (but more proletarian) anti-Walker movement and the geographically-broader (but less concrete) OWS together into a meaningful coalition, that could be a significant development toward such a mass movement. And the ballot status of the union-oriented Working Families Party, here in New York and beyond, could play an important role as well, given a leadership skilled in the long view of the class struggle. But the steadily reactionary drift of an increasingly aggressive Republican Party shows that we cannot continue to fight defensive battles only. Simply because we may not yet be in a revolutionary situation does not mean we should indefinitely postpone putting socialism on the political agenda -- a chronically-exhausting mistake, as it allows the right-wing to continue to set the national agenda that we then must respond to. It isn't enough to perpetually mobilize to defeat one perennial right-wing candidate or another before trying to advance our program. We must try to do both and by whatever means -- new or old -- work. Flexible tactics and a flexible strategy to find the approach that finally compels the workers to act in their -- and society's -- true interests.

Posted by Robert S., 09/14/2012 1:25am (12 years ago)