This programme here following is feasible if the political pole of attraction
would be a United Front of the various social movements in Civil Society. This
would be a federated party as I the Russian Social-Democratic Party prior to
the split into the Communist Party. The difference being that the Jewish Bund
was a constituent of the RS_DP but not of the Communist Party, which
degenerated into a bourgeois State bureaucracy.
Dr abraheim
From: marxmail@groups.io <marxmail@groups.io> On Behalf Of Ben Seattle via
groups.io
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 8:58 AM
To: marxmail@groups.io
Subject: [marxmail] Ben Seattle's WITBD? -- (part 2)
(all questions, comments and criticisms are appreciated)
What is to be done?
A concise review of the MarxMail forum on:
"What's next for the Left?" after Trump's
Election
Ben Seattle -- February 2025
http://communism.org/node/4050
http://communism.org/node/4050/4050.pdf
�
-- (part 2) --
�
Mark Lause: � �
� � � � � � � �► How did we get where we are?
� � � � � � � ► Electoral united front?
� � � � � � � ► United front for alternative news and media
�
The next two speakers, like me and like most of the people on MarxMail, are old
enough to remember the ferment of the 1960's. � Mark Lause became part of
Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at that time. � SDS in many ways kicked
off the Cambrian explosion of activist groups which dominated the left for the
next several decades. � Now a retired history professor, Mark is today loosely
affiliated with the Green Party.
�
Rather than repeat the points that Blanca made, Mark began with an overview of
the stages of decay of the Democratic Party following Nixon's presidency, as it
gradually became a 2nd version of the Republican Party and adopted a strategy
of competing with the Republicans for big donors. � Once it did this, it no
longer had to worry much about catering to its voter base. � Election campaigns
became centered on images of happiness and joy with little substance. � The
Democratic Party not only failed to challenge Republican positions--it adopted
those positions and became Republican itself.
�
Now--after losing the election, the Democratic Party mouthpieces are telling us
that Harris was campaigning too far to the left--and that all problems can be
fixed by moving further to the right. � Mark described this as a
self-referencing, self-justifying, faith-based set of assumptions to
rationalize what will get the most donor money.
�
Democratic Party leaders have called Trump and his movement fascists--and they
present themselves as allies in the fight against fascism--but they have done
nothing about the overt open corruption and criminality of sitting members of
the US Supreme Court and dragged their feet in going after Trump for the
attempted January 6 insurrection. � This kind of inaction and hypocrisy is not
some peculiar screw up. � It represents the heart of the Democratic Party's
institutional response to Trump.
�
Mark noted that the failure of the left to create a class alternative to all
this stands out. � Mark is in favor of a united front based on electoral
politics. � (I have already explained why, in my humble opinion, such an
electoral united front is a fantasy that will go nowhere.)
�
What is holding back the necessary
aggregation of socialist news and media?
In addition to the above, Mark also spoke in favor of what I might describe as
a different kind of united front--based on the cooperation of individuals and
groups to create and aggregate alternative news and media that explicitly
promotes socialist ideas. � Mark noted that he cannot explain why something
such as this has not already been done.
�
As someone who has been focused on this very thing for decades, I can offer my
humble opinion concerning why this has not been done:
�
(1) Such an aggregation of news and media would greatly increase transparency
in our movement. � Our movement desperately needs such transparency. � But the
groups in our movement are desperately afraid of transparency.
�
(2) The crisis of theory has reached the point where words such as "socialism"
means nothing whatsoever other than a less bad version of capitalism or an
imaginary world that cannot be explained. � The groups in our movement are held
together by a kind of ideological glue that gives necessary confidence to their
supporters. � Clarity on the important theoretical principles related to things
such as "socialism" would tend to dissolve this glue--and thus dissolve these
groups.
�
Dan La Botz: � �
� � � � � � � �► Focus on the people drawn into motion
� � � � � � � � � � � � �by forces around the Democratic Party
�
Dan La Botz was a founding member of Teamsters for a Democratic Union, has
written several books, including Troublemakers' Handbook, and is a co-editor of
New Politics.
�
What struck me about La Botz's presentation--was how knowledgeable and
absolutely confident he was--in spite of the fact that he was attempting to
justify an orientation focused nearly entirely on the people drawn into motion
by the actions of Democratic governors and attorney generals, as well as the
billionaires, candidates and unions closely tied to the Democratic Party. � La
Botz paid lip service, of course, to the idea of independent class
politics--but mainly focused on the value of lobbying and putting pressure on
legislators. � La Botz said it would be ok to criticize these bigwigs--if such
criticsm was done with sufficient "finesse". � I am not making this up.
�
I am going to guess that La Botz is representative of a large and influential
layer of activists entirely focused on recruiting naïve people drawn into
motion by the Democratic Party. � This layer orbits the Democratic Party like
flies circling shit. � If our movement needs clarity in order to overcome its
dysfunction--we will not find it here.
�
Blanca replied to La Botz that--obviously--if the Democrats organize mass
actions in the streets--we need to support that. � But we also know we cannot
rely on the Democrats to do consistent work in this direction. �
Therefore--anyone is free to spend their time lobbying if that is what they
want to do--but what our movement needs is the kind of united front built on
independent mass action--so that when the Democratic Party refuses to mobilize
people to fight back against Trump's attacks--we can have confidence that an
independent vehicle can do this work.
�
Mark Lause replied to La Botz in a similar way: if we do not stop them--the
Democrats will simply walk in and take over any movement (such as for immigrant
rights, abortion rights, black lives matter, Occupy, etc) and get it off the
street as quickly as they can. � We must prepare a network to resist this. �
Anything we can do along these lines, we should do.
�
It is useful to include people like La Botz in a forum like this. � People like
me can get on a soapbox and pontificate to activists about the need to avoid
becoming mired in the tar pit of Democratic Party politics--but there is no
substitute for a forum where everyone can see these people in action and hear
their arguments in their own words.
�
Ben Seattle: We need an information platform
I spoke for two minutes (at the 56 minute mark in the video and transcript). �
I said that I would rather slit my throat than waste my time on any project
that required being acceptable to the Democratic Party.
�
I mentioned the distinction between work on the subjective and objective sides
of the spectrum (please see chart below).
�
�
The objective aspect of our work includes things such as visible achievements,
mobilizations for actions, and victories in struggles.
�
The subjective aspect of our work represents efforts related to ideas and
things such as consciousness and organization. � This includes:
�
(1) understanding the need to openly confront the rot in our movement
� � � � � �that has led to a situation where opposition to growing fascism has
� � � � � �been left in the hands of the capitalist class (ie: a blueprint for
� � � � � �catastrophe) and
�
(2) the emergence of the independent and democratic organization
� � � � � �we need for the organization of class struggle.
�
I noted that the work to create a pole of attraction is on the subjective side
and would be greatly assisted with the development of an information platform
that did not have the problems associated with corporate social media platforms
(ie: where we have little control over what we see and the most toxic content
is amplified) or the problems associated with listservs (ie: where the
signal-to-noise ratio generally degrades as more people enter a discussion).
-- (continued in part 3) --
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#35382): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/35382
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/111340334/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
