Socialist Critique of DK

http://www.michigansocialist.net/news/tms006-kucinich.html

A 'workers' White House?'
The promise and reality of the Kucinich campaign

By BEN BURGIS
The Michigan Socialist

AS SOCIALISTS, we argue that politicians representing the political machines of the business owning classes can never be relied on to carry out the interests of working people.

Rather than supporting the “less evil” Democrats over the “more evil” Republicans, we try to build an independent working-class alternative to fight for a better society.

After all, the Democratic and Republican parties are joined at the wallet to a common agenda, within the bounds of which only very limited disagreements over secondary questions are every really tolerated.

That is to say, for example (to pick the difference most frequently cited by supporters of lesser evil politics), that the debates within and between the two major parties sometimes cover the rather limited question of whether or not women should be given the “choice” between aborting fetuses before they develop into children they can’t afford to raise or raising them in poverty.

However, no mainstream Democrat or Republican wants to give women a real choice by providing both free abortions on demand, as part of a system of universal health care, and, on the other hand, massive publicly-funded child support so that poor women who choose to have children can do so without further impoverishing themselves.

The debates within and between these two parties rarely touch on the basic shared premises of empire abroad, economic austerity at home and a systematic prioritization of corporate profits over the human needs and democratic rights of the majority of the populace in all spheres.

From this perspective, the presidential campaign of Congressman Dennis Kucinich is an extremely interesting development.....

Read the rest of the article at http://www.michigansocialist.net/news/tms006-kucinich.html

Somewhere, somebody thinks even Dennis Kucinich is too conservative. Geez.

when I went to a metting at a college in Spartanburg, SC of all places, back in January. They had a front-page article denouncing Dennis Kucinich as a sham Progressive and the running dog of the capitalist imperialists.

I should have saved it.

If they are the MIM (Maoist International Movement), then the Socialist Party is also a liberal sell-out party.

You should have saved it - the MIMs are very entertaining.

if that's their critique of Kucinich, I would hate to read the one on Kerry! :eyes:

Then write a letter to the editor (me). Send an e-mail to editor@mi-socialists.org with your comments.

Martin

is this a magazine that takes potshots at underdogs, or does it treat every candidate this way???

We'll find this out and more in future issues...:shrug:

From the last issue, written before his campaign's implosion. Go to http://news.mi-socialists.org and click on the "Features | In-Depth" section to get to the Dean article.

The next two issues will be addressing Kerry (first, him as a candidate; then, his "Real Deal"). After that, a thorough ass-kicking will be given to *.

So, to answer your question, we are critical of all the candidates. Someone has to be.

Martin

just so you know...I have read the article on Dean. I was riled in part because I considered myself a Dean supporter before I became a Kucinich voter.

A lot of our readers are left-Democrats (including a number of DUers). So, I personally would welcome comments from folks here.

Also, since I'm the one who wrote the Dean critique, I would be especially interested in your thoughts on that article.

Martin

Kerry will be eviscerated using these standards, though he will do marginally better than Bush. Since Kerry represents basically the same bourgeois bowsprit we've seen before, he can't rate as low as a remarkably reactionary authoritarian administration such as Bush's. He will rate low, however.

So, yes, our "standards" are rather specific and high-level. I make no apologies for that. We are, after all, the Michigan Socialist. ;-)

And, yeah, Kerry will get nailed. But the real toxic venom is being saved for the Chimp. Trust me on that.

Martin

I keep reading then! :thumbsup:

Is that you and the other editors go back and find an obscure book called "The End of Ideology" by Daniel Bell, where he analyzes why radical political movements failed in the early 20th century.


The most obvious flaw in your argument is your groundless assertion that the Democratic party is inherently "corporate" (whatever that means). In fact, there is no reason why you cannot build up a democratic socialist movement within the Democratic party while also fighting for incremental change. If Bush is reelected, the goal of socialism in America becomes that much harder--we both know it.

Furthermore, I can't help feeling that your idea of one mass workers' revolution is an adolescent fantasy that is increasingly unreal in the modern world. History doesn't inspire much confidence that revanchist workers revolutions can be the foundation of a just society. The sad, boring fact is that real justice is hard work--it requires gradual, incremental democratic change under a system of law, order, egalitarianism, and individual responsibility. It requires enlightenment, peace, and rational conflict resolution-none of which are revolutionary mentality's strong suit.

We have to alter the conditions that determine consciousness so that consciousness can peacefully adjust, then we have to do it again. And again. It's a long, hard road to real socialism and a just society and it will require further advances in technology before it's over.

Same old crap we've heard for years -- albeit with the "new" pepper of postmodernism. Double yawn.

Martin

Peace...yawn.... Principles...yawn... Hard work and discipline....yawn..

Revolution! Now that's cool!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

vernacular socialist, have little respect for doctrinaire socialist organisations: their doctrine too often is treated as being more important than life itself. To sewer-socialists like me, that feels like a kind of autism.

The UN is impure and dominated by the big chunks? Yep, it's true. But we've really screwed the Iraqis, and we don't get a do-over. So what's the least-awful thing we can do from where we're at now? If there's a better choice than getting the UN to proctor the rebuilding, I don't know what it is. Perhaps you do?

Kucinich shouldn't endorse or work for Kerry, if Kerry's the nominee? I think all that would guarantee is that Kucinich would be opposed in the next primary by the party itself. Which would probably--not guaranteed, because he's very popular, but probably--result in his being turfed out of his job. Again, I can't think of any way that would be a net improvement, but perhaps you can.

Kucinich isn't stupid (understatement of the year!) -- he knows that he doesn't control the future votes of the people who vote for him. He can support Kerry to save his job while knowing that most of his supporters will understand it for what it is, and act in what we see as our best interests--which might be to support someone other than Kerry. We're mostly not shut-up-and-fall-into-line types, we 'Delusional Diehards for Dennis'. :)

You wrote: "The UN is impure and dominated by the big chunks? Yep, it's true. But we've really screwed the Iraqis, and we don't get a do-over. So what's the least-awful thing we can do from where we're at now? If there's a better choice than getting the UN to proctor the rebuilding, I don't know what it is. Perhaps you do?"

Yes, I do -- and Ben does as well. There is a third force active inside Iraq, which opposes both the occupation and the core "resistance" (i.e., the Ba'athist and Islamist guerrillas, not the angry, armed civilians). Across Iraq there exists a new independent workers' movement -- independent unions, unemployed organizations and workers' councils.

In cities like Kirkuk, they are all but the sole municipal authority (they run the water pumping stations, the electrical grid and the oil fields). In Baghdad, members of this movement, through the workers' councils, are not only helping to rebuild poor neighborhoods bombed by the U.S. (after a decade of disrepair), but they are also taking up the responsibility of patrolling areas of the city, to keep out ex-Ba'athists, Islamists and other armed gangs (including occupation soldiers).

This movement has mass, popular support. It is the only stable and reliable network of institutions that can make the claim. The workers' councils that exist now in every large- and mid-sized city of Iraq can be, and should be, the basis for a new, soverign government. That's what they are designed for, after all.

The councils elect their own representatives, and have already held one national congress (last December). All that would be necessary to transfer power to this Congress would be to recognize it as the governing authority, remove the occupation forces, and release the frozen assets and aid to their administration. The workers' councils -- and the broader workers' movement -- can take it from there.

---

As for the other two points, there would have to be a serious discussion about the role of pragmatism in mass consciousness to make any significant headway, one way or the other. So, we'll just have to leave it at that.

Martin

There's a long tradition of socialism around the world, so that doesn't surprise me. Pockets of vernacular socialism spontaneously arose in the US, too, to fill administrative vacuums during the time of industrial organising. And were ruthlessly put down, or in a few cases collapsed because they couldn't scale up.

Why wouldn't some warlords, left unchecked, put down the ones in Iraq? What fraction of the people are solidly behind--as in 'willing to fight and die for, and skillful enough to kill for'--these socialist efforts? Most people just want to go about their business, and others are always willing to pour a little oil on troubled fires.

Why does handing it to the UN mean sellout? It seems to me that the UN has a much smaller stake in killing off socialism than does the US. If the UN isn't in charge, why wouldn't the US go right on meddling?

There's a long tradition of socialism around the world, so that doesn't surprise me. Pockets of vernacular socialism spontaneously arose in the US, too, to fill administrative vacuums during the time of industrial organising. And were ruthlessly put down, or in a few cases collapsed because they couldn't scale up.

There is an especially deep tradition of socialism in Iraq, because of the role of the Iraqi Socialists and Communists in the 1956 democratic revolution.

Why wouldn't some warlords, left unchecked, put down the ones in Iraq? What fraction of the people are solidly behind--as in 'willing to fight and die for, and skillful enough to kill for'--these socialist efforts? Most people just want to go about their business, and others are always willing to pour a little oil on troubled fires.

The independent workers' movement in Iraq has the active support of probably about 30-40 percent of the population; inactive, passive support is hard to judge, but I would suspect that there is a significant level of that, too. Most of that is due to the success of the independent unions and unemployed organizations. Since unemployment is so rampant, the old Ba'athist unions are moribund, and one of the roles the occupation soldiers are playing is that of unionbuster, they have gained a lot of mass support.

If a "warlord" or some other armed gang tried to suppress a union or workers' council, the experiences of the last year have shown that the workers will pick up their automatic rifles and fight back. They have done that several times when bosses, with the aid of American unionbusting soldiers, have tried to sack labor organizers. Armed strikes are a reality in today's Iraq.

Why does handing it to the UN mean sellout? It seems to me that the UN has a much smaller stake in killing off socialism than does the US. If the UN isn't in charge, why wouldn't the US go right on meddling?

A UN solution will not include the workers' organizations, except as auxiliaries for some "government" approved by the Security Council's Big Five. The UN won't "kill off" the workers' movement; it will try to tame it. But, if that doesn't work,...

Martin

Although I don't know for certain, I feel confident that DK has taken that into account in his plan, since I have no sense that he's given to making empty gestures. And handing it over to the UN without an undertaking that the 'big five' would butt out would be shaky at best and, yes, empty at worst.

If he spoke more about such things. I would like to know if he has taken these things into account, and what he would do if faced with that situation.

Martin

DK was an enlightened conservative, hell of lot better in Amurikkka than all the unenlightened ones running.
Do you really think that in the age of U$ Corporatism/Facism a real progressive or a socialist could run?

is that rather than spending time and energy working for and donating to a political candidate, real progressive change will only come by building a revolutionary party of the workers, the poor, and the dispossessed.

As a socialist myself, I understand this argument, but when confronted with it, I always come back to something that I have long felt bubbling, something that convinced me to work for Dean even though his politics are in many ways polar opposite to my own, and something that brought back into the Democratic Party...at least for a while...

This is the thing...why not both? Why not build a revolutionary progressive party AND work within the Demcratic Party?

And here's why, as Rosa Luxemburg argued in her "Reform or Revolution" it is imperative that Socialists and Revolutionaries fight for reform at the SAME TIME that they build toward revolution and revolutionary change.

Why?

Because not everyone, in fact at most times, not even a large number of people have revolutionary consciousness or revolutionary ambitions.

Only by participating in successful reform efforts can the experience, confidence, connections, and understanding of the political sphere be brought to the surface of peoples' conscious minds.

So, whether it is fighting to elect a decidedly UN-revolutionary democrat, fighting for meager, piecemeal changes in flawed policies, supporting politically bankrupt unions as they organize a strike...

Only by participating in reforms as a conscious and outspoken socialist revolutionary can you help create the political tools, political understanding, and political cohesion necessary to REALLY build toward an eventual revolution.

And, as Trotsky wrote in "My Life" and John Reed reported in "10 days that shook the world" - prepare to be completely and totally surprised at the speed, vehemence, and complete involvement of people you would never expect, in numbers beyond wildest expectations at a totally unexpected juncture.

Prepared to be swamped.

Because in a REAL revolutionary situation, even the revolutionaries get overtaken by events and overwhelmed by the sudden inrush of newly active, newly engaged, newly radicalized people.

BUT, remember, revolutionaries can only help build to that state of events, that critical point, by participating actively and positively in the movements and political events OF THE DAY...those movements are political events are NOT dictated by the Revolutionary party...

Therefore, we MUST participate in the flawed political reform processes and movements - from elections to union drives to boycotts - that are determined by the greater political reality of the time.

So, work as Socialists, within the current political framework...but do it consciously, vocally, effectively, and intelligently, with an eye toward pushing for more, pushing hard, and capturing imaginations, respect. Show yourself to be effective, considerate, patient, and smart. Make clear your criticisms, even as you work to support a candidate or a policy. Explain why you think it or them so flawed, and why a socialist answer is better.

For the record, though, we are not dismissing working with or running political candidates. On the contrary, the Socialist Party here in Michigan is assembling its own slate for November -- mostly candidates for local and statewide office; no takers so far for U.S. Congress seats.

This series of articles is meant to offer a revolutionary democratic socialist critique of the candidates from the two main parties. It is not, in any way, meant to present a dichotomy between doing work in daily struggles and building a socialist movement.

But the question you specifically raise -- i.e., intervening in the Democratic Party -- is a tricky one. Let me explain.

There are social-democratic groups that actively work within the Democratic Party. Both Democratic Socialists of America and the "Third Way" Social Democrats USA work inside the Dems (SDUSA also works in and around the moderate wing of the GOP, and have leadership roles in the DLC -- go figure). The problem is that, when they started doing this, they ended up abandoning the other side of the equation, building an independent socialist movement, and became virtually indistinguishable from their "progressive", populist and left-liberal colleagues.

Now, that said, there is only one scenario that would, if possible, allow for both sides of the equation to be addressed. That is, there is one possible tactic I can see that would: a) preserve the independence of a working-class socialist movement; and b) allow for intervention into the Democratic Party. But, honestly, if that tactic was tried, it would not be long before the DLC/DNC would let slip the dogs of factional war. It's an interesting hypothesis, but I seriously doubt the Democratic Party leadership would ever let it get tested in practice.

In any event, you're welcome to send a letter to the editor (me) about this. Send an e-mail to editor@mi-socialists.org.

Martin

And I agree, as a member in good standing of the ISO :) ...that working within and without at the same time is extremely difficult and can result in a number of bad ends: Losing distinctions, losing message potency, igniting factional struggles, comeing off ass, or really becoming a hypocrite (Bernie Sanders, for example...I am still not sure which one happened to him!)

Now as for the following

Now, that said, there is only one scenario that would, if possible, allow for both sides of the equation to be addressed. That is, there is one possible tactic I can see that would: a) preserve the independence of a working-class socialist movement; and b) allow for intervention into the Democratic Party. But, honestly, if that tactic was tried, it would not be long before the DLC/DNC would let slip the dogs of factional war. It's an interesting hypothesis, but I seriously doubt the Democratic Party leadership would ever let it get tested in practice.

What do you think just happened? Does your scenario sound familiar? Does it ring any bells? Does it remind you of This for example?

It does me. And I find it tragically amusing, and a bit hopeful, in fact, that the campaign I decided to support was the target of exactly the kind of letting loose of the dogs of factional war....

And is, btw, still active, still meeting, and still working on an effective "within and without" strategy.

Democrats should rest assured that myself and the other hard lefties are considered "pets" by the overwhelming majority of good staunch democrats participating in DFA...


However, I showed, using my skills as a caucus goer (honed in town meetings in Maine) and as an organizer to get solid results...those results gained me a modicum of respect, and gained my ideas and strategies a second and third look...and who knows.

Cooperation is not always the same as capitulation.

And if you want to reprint, edit, excerpt any or all of what I wrote for an editorial or article, let me know via PM...I do not have time for any serious letter or article writing...

But, if we were to do what I'm thinking about (I'll PM you about it), it would make the hack job on Dean look like he was being endorsed -- especially if the tactic achieved a measure of success, even on a small scale.

I'll send you a PM about other issues related to this. Thanks.

Martin

What about the classes you're supposed to be representing that are getting screwed over by your non-participation in the political system?

What, ultimately, is more important to you? Improvements in actual lives or the purity and superiority of your ideology? Is the issue really who controls the Democratic party institutionally, or is it people in the Democratic party having a different ideology?

The truth is this. If the Left were to build up a stronger presence in the Democratic party and it came to a factional war, the resulting media exposure and consciousness raising would make the Left a hell of a lot stronger than it is now (characterized by meekness, Kucinich's electorally disappointing campaign, and all these despairing splinter parties). Either way, in your own scenario of being run over by the evil "DLC/DNC", the Left is more organized, more powerful, more energized, and participating in a real dialougue with mainstream America. If we lost, then so what? We vote for the lesser of 2 evils, hope for change for the better, and keep fighting. We push for reforms like IRV. We work to change the Democratic party on the local level. When the opportunity arises (Depression, botched war, etc.) then radical ideas might have a chance. But as a 3rd party, this opportunity is never going to come--the Socialists have toiled long enough with this failed strategy. It's time to face up to history.

First, in terms of participating in the political system, I would refer you to the comments in response to eridani, below.

Second, in answer to your question about what's important in terms of the Democrats, I would say it is the question of which class is calling the shots (i.e., "who controls the Democratic Party institutionally"), not the ideology of the members. In fact, I have said time and again that, if the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party tossed out the agents of Big Capital and sought to transform themselves into a labor party, I would be one of the first signing up to build it -- regardless of the "ideology" the members themselves hold. As the saying goes, you cannot serve two masters.

As for the rest, you are welcome to keep "your own" (well, it's really not your own; you're simply borrowing it from the capitalists) ideology to yourself.

Martin

"In fact, I have said time and again that, if the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party tossed out the agents of Big Capital and sought to transform themselves into a labor party, I would be one of the first signing up to build it -- regardless of the "ideology" the members themselves hold."

=

Unless the Democrats become MY kind of labor party with MY kind of organization and values, then I will not vote in solidarity with them, regardless of the concrete setbacks for the people I claim to be representing. What is needed is not concrete change, but an ideological cleansing!

Another Weimar, anyone?

Obviously, the only thing that matters is to be part of the political "in crowd" -- oops! I mean, (perceived, contrived) "mainstream". That kind of pathetic pragmatism is best reserved to junior high school cliques, and should have no place in politics.

Incidentally, what has all your work for "concrete change" brought you? The Democratic Party is still sliding to the right, under the leadership of the DLC. A candidate running on a lukewarm version of FDR's New Deal -- you remember FDR, the four-term Democratic president? -- can't even muster a single victory in the primaries! No, you cannot blame me, or people like me, for that.

When you submit to pragmatism, you are a dead man walking. When you consciously choose expediency over principle, you no longer have any principles of which to speak. You left those at the entrance.

What you see as "concrete change" usually ends up being merely concrete -- y'know, the stuff that, when it gets all over you, weighs you down, slows your progress and generally burns you out.

No thanks. I don't need any of your gold bricks.

Martin

You are the one determined to be "outside" the mainstream by any means necessary. I know, Al Gore and John Kerry--they're so "in-crowd" and J-crew! I mean, we can't vote for them because they went to elite universities and got into elite organizations.

You attack the rightward shift of the Democratic party and of this country in general, as though it justifies dropping out of the system. But what have the Socialist splinter parties ever done for the Left? What concrete accomplishments in national politics can they boast, besides shifting the country to the right by dividing the progressive vote?

I never left my principles at the door. I choose to confront injustice head on. I choose to enter into dialougue--to be open to other opinions and prepared to adjust political ideology according to the facts of reality. I choose to accept democratic choices and respect people as individuals, rather than blame the "system" or the culture industry for every inadequacy. I will not cry over split milk or indulge in narcissistic, violent dreams. I choose to live and act in the real, diverse, pluralistic world instead of in a fantasy-land, a homogeneous clique of like-minded that undoubtedly constitutes your publication.

It truly is. Socialism is the natural gravitation of human governance. Some societies tried it a bit early, we will achieve it just in time.

We will get to a point where the USA is Socialist, and the Republican Party is the conservative socialist party, and the democrats are the moderate Socialist party. It is an institutional thing, and it will happen outside of the realm of politics.

I just want to get there, and not merely fantasize about it. Step 1 is to engage in the political process and ousting reactionaries like Bush.

And reactionaries like Bush are helping us get there. We are about this close-> (picture pinching fingers) to having institutional Socialism. Infact some would say we have already reached it. What helps is that half of the reforms have already been made years and years ago.

Edit...spelling

You don't dialogue with people who think they are above you. But then, it's pretty obvious that you are not working class, so you would never understand such things.

Martin

You are really a piece of work. I hope that time travel is invented our lifetime so you can go back 100 years and find happiness.

The only way to be Post-Marxist is by being Pre-Marxist :P

V

I agree completely!

:thumbsup:

is EXACTLY what you're saying. Work within the broad coalition party that's known as the Democrats, and also organize a separate progressive party to run/support candidates for local offices.

This is the "third way" that may actually work in our two-party system, where both parties are actually coalitions serving broad-based constituencies (in theory, at least).

Voter: There is brown gunk coming out of my faucet.

Socialist splinter party: Yes! That's because capitalism sucks!

Voter: Um, OK. But I'm really worried about getting sick from the brown gunk.

Socialist splinter party: In that case, you must join the glorious revolution, and after we win, all will be well.

Yahrright. Greens and Dems run people for water and sewer commissioner. ISO and SWP don't. 'Nuff said.

Your characterization is incorrect.

there are some Socialists in office (Bernie Sanders is one)


http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

Many issues and advocacy campaigns ongoing.

DSA, ISO, CPUSA, SPUSA and the many splinter factions are currently active in Union struggles, death penalty, sweat shop struggles, reproductive rights...

Your characterization is insulting - and it ignores a lot of really dedicated people who spend a lot of their time, energy and money fighting the good fight.

His philosophy is socialist in many respects, but you could say the same about Kucinich.

None of the parties you mentioned have candidates in any local race in WA state except your typical no-namers with no experience in elected office who are running for president. WTF is the point?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

"He is the only independent member of the House, and is also the only self-declared socialist elected to national public office in the United States in recent times."

If you are going to argue, get your facts straight...especially if you are going to argue in an insulting and derogatory fashion.

Thanks.

Why insist on being nasty?

There are a lot of committed Socialists who do a lot of excellent political work for great causes...some of them are elected to local, state, and even national office.

Why antagonize?

That's all some people have. They are content with being agents of capitalism; they derive some illusion of benefit from it. Oh well.

Martin

I'm not arguing platform ideas, OK? FDR stole the Socialist Party platform in the 30s, after all. I'm talking about organization. I always thought DSA people were people with socialist ideals who ran as Democrats. Am I wrong here? If so, sorry. There's a difference between people like Sanders and Monica Moorehead tactically, no?

There are a few DSAers who have been elected to Congress as Democrats, too.

I would say that the differences between Sanders and Moorehead are more than tactical.

Martin

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Checked the DSA website. No indication of any candidate running for any office under their auspices anyhere. (Green website lists every Green officeholder and candidate nationwide.) Looks like they are advocating socialist policies within the Democratic party--fine by me. So if the Michigan Socialist is with DSA on that, why are they knocking Kucinich?

It is a Socialist organization. It is a group that a few Congressman are members of. Bernie Sanders is the only publicly admitted one, but I have read there are a couple more who don't make it public. The DSA used to host the Congressional Progressive Caucus's website until the Republicans bitched and moaned about it.

There is a difference. Go to www.mi-socialists.org to check us out. You'll have to check back regularly, though, because the candidate websites are just beginning to be put together. I think that Ben's is the only one active. The website for Lisa Weltman, who is running for Michigan Board of Education, will be active later today.

Martin

As a Socialist I must disagree with everything said in that article.

The Scoial State WOULD be created under Dennis.

One thing I always have a hard time getting my fellow Socialists to realize is that our Constitution ambigously leaves the door open for Socialism. There are no law changes that would be required initially, eventually some laws would be made, but these are changes to tax code and revised code. All of these would be very achievable by about 2 years into DK's first term.

Do you think that the state apparatus -- especially the military-industrial complex! -- will let those things happen?

Have you ever looked into what happened to Allende in Chile? I think that what happened there offers important lessons for us here. After all, what they did to Allende back in 1973 can just as easily be done to a Kucinich-type candidate if he (or she) were to win the presidency here. That is especially the case, since it would be the same shadowy figures doing it.

Martin

First off, the military has flourished in most Socialist states.

A word of secret, militaries are Socialist institutions.

As to the rest; if we are in a situation where Dennis can win with votes, then the paradigm obviously has changed. I believe it would be proof that alot could be accomplished towards creating the social state.

First off, the military has flourished in most Socialist states.

In the petty-bourgeois, bureaucratic socialist states, yes. But we are talking democratic socialism, not bureaucratic socialism.

A word of secret, militaries are Socialist institutions.

Umm, as someone who grew up in a military family, I very much dispute that assertion. And I can think of a number of military personnel here that would probably take exception to that as well. I mean, the very idea of the officer corps is anathema to democratic functioning, which is predicated on elections and accountability.

As to the rest; if we are in a situation where Dennis can win with votes, then the paradigm obviously has changed. I believe it would be proof that alot could be accomplished towards creating the social state.

I suppose that may be true. If someone like Kucinich, who I consider a social-democrat, could "win with votes", I would certainly agree with you that the situation in this country will have changed. But, again, there is a difference to consider. Democratic socialism is about democracy and democratic control being extended to all aspects of society, not simply a more generous democracy under capitalist class rule.

I would still be interested in your thoughts on what happened to Allende.

Martin

Which I guess is Bureacratic.

The military offers housing, health care, free meals, college tuition...etc,etc...that is Institutional Socialism. I agree about the officer corps not necessarily fitting in, but I wasn't really talking about them.

About opening up America to the control of society, I agree. I believe the first step is getting rid of international trade agreements, start placing businesses under the control of government (municipalities). Dennis is proposing this. dennis is also proposing socialized Health Care, as well as socialized education. These are the reforms that will make America a country of socialist institutions.

I have not studied Allende, I know we backed a right wing coup and assassination, but that is really all I know.

He was swept to power democratically in 1970, on the basis of a "paradigm shift" in Chilean politics. However, once he entered office, he began getting pressure from the state apparatus -- the military, mainly, but also the state bureaucracy, the police, etc. -- to "moderate" his changes (which were already quite tame and moderate, limited mostly to democratic and land reform).

Because Allende failed to break up those elements of the state, the latter rebelled and overthrew him in 1973, with the backing of the U.S., and installed Pinochet as dictator. The "disappearings", torture and murder that happened under Pinochet was a direct result of Allende's failure to break up the old capitalist state apparatus.

Were Kucinich to sweep to power in a similar fashion as Allende did, he would immediately come under the same pressure. The military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, the massive federal bureaucratic machine, the "Homeland Security" apparatus, etc., would try with all their might to get Dennis to "play ball". If he resisted, but left them intact, then he -- and his supporters -- would end up meeting a fate similar to what befell Allende.

This is an important lesson to understand: the state functions as an instrument of coercion and control -- specifically an instrument used by a minority class to compell the majority to maintain "order". If, somehow, the majority wins control, it has to settle accounts with the state if it is to maintain control. If it fails to do this -- i.e., if it fails to break apart the old state and develop new institutions and structures that better fit a new, really democratic (socialist) society -- then all the old barbarism of the capitalist state will regroup and fight back ... with the financial and material aid of the deposed capitalists and their Great Power backers (like the U.S.).

This was one of the points Ben was trying to make in his article: Kucinich couldn't even get the local state apparatus, and its capitalist paymasters, to go along with keeping Muny Light a public utility. True, they didn't take him out like they did Allende, but they didn't need to. They just pushed him out of office. Imagine the kind of resistance he would get if he, as president, tried to abolish NAFTA and the WTO, or the Dept. of Homeland Security, or carried out his plan to cut the military budget.

Remember what happened to Kennedy when he moved to break up the CIA and back away from Vietnam? Dennis would meet the same fate, or worse, if he tried to implement his platform without first settling accounts with the state.

Personally, I like Dennis. I voted for him in the Michigan Democratic Caucus. If he ever ran as an independent, he'd have my vote, my commitment and my money in a second. But, as long as he operates within the "rules" set up by the DLC/DNC (i.e., the capitalist class), he is not only hamstrung politically, he would be a dead man the moment he tried to implement his policies.

It sucks to say it, but this is the ugly reality of capitalism.

Martin

P.S.: About the benefits that military personnel get, I agree that those policies -- gleaned from Socialist platforms of the past -- are progressive. I would fight tooth and nail for their retention and expansion. But those good policies don't change the fundamental character of the military. That's all I was trying to say.

Very informative. I believe I can see some obvious things that might be a bit different here. I guess I kinda believe the paradigm has already been shifted. We on the far left know we can forever alter the Democratic party...we say we are Democrats all year long and then vote Independant. We know with proper organizing we can make the Democratic party either fold up, or open up.

At the point it opens up, we can achieve a government of all Socialist institutions. We must achieve that state before we can make democratic-socialism a possibility. If these reforms are made first, of free health care, college, changes in the tax code; the people will keep the fate of Allende from happening here. The military industrial complex would be attempting a coup here, are they ready to start a new revolution for us? I don't think they are. The Federal Government and it's bureacracies are SO bureacratic that it doesn't matter what ideology moves them. In basic short, we take it to them and hit them first with the reforms, and make them stop us.

Working with Dems like Kucinich in a campaign that already has precinct organizing structures on the ground is a good idea, IMO. There is room for all kinds of approaches, including Greens and any explicitly socialist group that wants to run candidates for local office, building from the ground up--I have no time for theoretical bloviating as principal party activity. Still don't get the point of slamming Kucinich for doing it his way.

Funnily enough, I believe he addressed that very issue in one of the interviews (I don't remember which one, perhaps someone else does).

I also can't quote, but this is an accurate paraphrase: (I)'But the corporations would certainly resist your doing that.' (DK)'They might, but if they do they'll be unpleasantly surprised by how much I learned from my time as Mayor of Cleveland.'

I would be interested to know what it is that DK learned from his experiences. That knowledge would, in my opinion, be very helpful in this part of the discussion.

Martin

You neglect to mention the influence of the CIA and Nixon/Kissenger's covert operations in Chile. We now know that the US played a key role in politicizing Chile's long non-political milatary.

In fact, CIA operatives smuggled in the "grease guns" used in the assassination of General Rene Schneider, the head of Chile's military, in 1970. Schneider was killed because he would not give in to pressures from politicized right-wing generals to stop Allende from taking power after the 1970 elections.

With the declassification of many importance intelligence documents, we're now learning that the US played a much bigger role in the destablization and overthrow of Allende than was previously thought. It can even be argued (quite successfully, IMHO) that the coup may not have happened without the financial and moral support of the Nixon Administration.

Chile, while a strong regional power, is not the US: the world's only remaining superpower. IMHO there's little chance of another superpower meddling in our personal affairs to the extent that the US did in Chile's in the early 1970s.

Consider the American state apparatus -- the CIA, military-industrial complex, etc. -- as that "other superpower". Think: "Chickens coming home to roost".

Martin

Please remember to keep outside articles to four paragraphs or less with a link back to the original source.

Thanks

Big McLargehuge
DU Moderator

As Editor of the Michigan Socialist, I give full reproduction rights to debsianben (aka Ben Burgis) to reprint, repost and in any way reproduce the above article. I also extend that permission to anyone who wishes to reprint, repost or otherwise reproduce the above article, as long as proper attribution is given.

Sincerely;
Martin Schreader, Editor
The Michigan Socialist
http://news.mi-socialists.org

I have to agree with most of the article. However, I also agree with the poster who called for two-fold action: participation and constructive agitation/confrontation. We have to show our willingness to participate in a peaceful (if not very likely) transition to socialism, while at the same time prepare for and even bring on the war. I am becoming more and more involved with socialist activities as I am moving farther away from the two-party political burlesque show.

Again, thanks for the post.

if its election year, and all the signs are there is no victory to be had, supporting the Dem can only do good.

Here in Briatain, a new coalition called RESPECT has been launched, which will attempt to take the fight to the three mainstream parties at this summer's European elections. Should be an interesting few months.

V

good discusion, very informative. thanks all

and a topic that deserves serious discussion.

"However, no mainstream Democrat or Republican wants to give women a real choice by providing both free abortions on demand, as part of a system of universal health care, and, on the other hand, massive publicly-funded child support so that poor women who choose to have children can do so without further impoverishing themselves."

This doesn't sound like socialism, this sounds like social welfare statism. This is not the type of thing a socialist would stress it seems to me. Socialism is all about the conflict between a worker and his boss/owner, and where is the conflict with that here? I think a socialist would be concentrating on how Kucinich is on the struggle between labor and capital, and this would be a side issue, not the centrally highlighted thing.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

You wrote: "This doesn't sound like socialism, this sounds like social welfare statism. This is not the type of thing a socialist would stress it seems to me. Socialism is all about the conflict between a worker and his boss/owner, and where is the conflict with that here? I think a socialist would be concentrating on how Kucinich is on the struggle between labor and capital, and this would be a side issue, not the centrally highlighted thing."

Are women not workers? Is health care not a working-class issue? Are the rights of women not a working-class issue? Are democratic rights and social equality not working-class issues?

Economic determinism is not part of the theoretical/philosophical viewpoint of democratic socialism. In the final analysis, it is economics that defines how social relations manifest themselves; however, the fight against capitalism has to take place on a political field, since it cannot survive without the coercive power of the state.

Martin

than American women do in 2004.

They had an explicit, constitutionally-protected guarantee of equality. That's something that still doesn't exist here.

Martin

I decided to vote for him cause he marched in the battle of Seattle (i knew he wasnt going to win anyways)and agreed with his platform pretty much (except for the UN) and do realize that war,and everything else are syptoms and we will have to cure the cause rather than the just the syptoms I dont know if i would call my self a socialist cause i trust the state as much as i trust big corporations/capitalism and dont like the authtitarian aspects of iidunno its late i need to go to bed

We have plenty of them in the Socialist Party. I kinda trend in that direction a little, myself. The SP's National Secretary, Greg Pason, considers himself a libertarian socialist.

Martin

Marx was a Libertarian socialist!

Engels even more so...

There are several formulations of socialism, and multiple versions of socialist "doctrine"...not to mention even more versions of socialist "strategy" and so on...

Some more accessible, some softer, some harder, some chocolate, some vanilla, some hot pepper, some MSG...

But they all contain some seeds planted way back in the day...and all too often most ignore OTHER seeds that failed to root.

Seeds planted that I feel are detrimental: Vanguardism, Cadre-ism, Democratic Centralism, Intelligentsia and insurrectionism... all contain the roots of bureacratic statism...leading to State Capitalism shamming as "socialism"....encompassing a lot of elitism and the idea that "we" the "educated intelligentsia, the elite" will be the "teachers and midwives" and lead the revolution forward.

Many, many, many current and former socialists (not to mention less "defined" leftists, progressives and liberal democrats) adhere to, subscribe to, and propagate this theme.

Seeds planted that have not been properly germinated, rooted, or tended...

The "vanguard" is NOT supposed to be leaders, teachers, or midwives. There is and are people who have "revolutionary aspirations" and revolutionary conscious in times that do not meet "revolutionary criteria" in terms of mass movements, consciousness, objective conditions and so on. In such times, the purpose, task, job of such people is to work on building that consciousness and preserving the best of (and analyzing the worst of) past efforts (discarding Stalinism and Maoism for example!).

However, that position does NOT entail "leading"...rather it entails giving oneself up to the will of the "revolutionized population" we are at THEIR disposal, to be ignored, used, propelled, directed or otherwise disposed of dispensed with or utilized...

I think of this as the "tip of the spear" ideal - we MAY BE the pointed edge...the apparatus (whether a particular party or union, and particular means or method) is the "shaft of the spear"...and the spearhead and spearshaft are always in the control of the hand - the hand, and the brain guiding that hand are always outside our direct control and guidance...

Rosa Luxemburg (Fight for current Reforms while working toward future revolutions) Leon Trotsky, and even Marx and Engels actually talked a lot about this in their less "celebrated" (or vilified") writings.

Inside-Outside is a strategy.

But being humble and at the service of people not yet ready to use your services is the basic and underlying principle.

What we see from most of the current "revolutionary left" organizations bears little resemblance to what Marx and Engels (or even Lenin and Trotsky) said or believed. It's interesting you bring up both "vanguardism" and "democratic centralism". If there have been two concepts so utterly warped and abused by our contemporary "left", these are it.

I have come to really understand what Debs meant when he said he'd rather "rise with the masses, not above them". That, to me, is the "leadership" role that revolutionary democratic socialists can play: the hard, patient work of making available the tools necessary for working people to develop themselves as leaders. That is, the role of people like me is to be able to provide what is necessary for workers to eduacte and develop themselves.

This idea of trying to substitute the membership of a small sect for the working class as a whole is completely alien, and a sickly import from capitalist ideology.

Danny, you might be interested in looking at the SP a little more -- especially the Debs Tendency, which is a leftwing current within the Party. Their website address is www.debstendency.org.

Martin

SP is good people, and Debs Tendency even better...but I will stick with my loose affiliation to the ISO for now...their economics are dynamite, their publications are great, and 90% of their politics right on target...

I inject my own brand of Libertarian Socialistic Anarcho-syndicalism whenever I attend meetings...and being close with several of the folks on the steering committee has led to some really great conversations and results...

So...thanks for the links and the pitch, and perhaps you should check out the http://www.internationalsocialist.org/ and http://isreview.org/ and http://socialistworker.org/

Interesting reading, at the very least...good informational resource...

Food for thought...anyway.

Personally, I wonder what some of your friends on the ISO steering committee would think of allowing dual membership. We have that kind of arrangement with Solidarity, CCDS and DSA (and, I think, FRSO). Actually, the SP's current male Co-Chair, Antonio Salas, was an ISO member in San Francisco for a long time (as well as being a Franciscan monk -- go figure).

Martin

Great thread!

Looking forward to the critique on Kerry!

Tentative title.

No problem on the DT website link. Did you have a chance to check out the Points of Unity or the DT discussion board?

Martin