For U.S. Leftists: Some General Thoughts on Strategy and Class

People (including myself) have mostly debated their principles here. In this thread, however, I'd like to shift gears a bit to focus on the more strategic side of the equation: how do leftists advance in a context like the United States of America? How is it possible to shift the political center of gravity in a more leftward direction?

First we have to ask ourselves why we most want to do that, and reach general agreement. That's right, we have to prioritize! You can't just think of all issues as being of equal importance. That's how narrow-minded, ideologically puritanical people think, not how pragmatists think. Some may wonder why the Republican Party is so much more ideologically puritanical and still able to win office. The answer lies in the fact that they have what are in many respects more favorable conditions. There are more American conservatives at present than there are American liberals or leftists. As a result, they don't have to compromise as much to be able to win election. We have to be more pragmatic. In any given party, it tends to be the youth who are the most idealist and energetic and the women and the old who are the most pragmatic. The more idealistic lack the ability to compromise because they see all issues as being of equal importance. But they are not. One of the lessons I have retained from my Maoist days is the concept of principal contractions. Society is always riddled by problems, but there is always a main problem that is on people's minds at any given point. These days discovering what that is is as easy as consulting opinion polling, and we know that in today's context the main issue clearly is bringing the fruits of economic recovery to the masses, who broadly have yet to experience it.

That's right: the masses have not recovered. The national median (real) income has consistently fallen since the end of 2007, and it has fallen at an even faster pace since the onset of "recovery". That tells you what the basis of economic recovery has been: recovery for the rich at the expense of the masses. Recovery for the 1% through increased exploitation an unemployment of the general population. Foreclosure rates are at record levels. There are today a record number of uninsured Americans. And I could go on. But my point is that when I hear these millionaire talk show hosts on MSNBC boasting about how much better economic conditions are today than they were in January of 2009, it just makes me shake my head at, as Mark Twain put such things, the perfect combination of ignorance and arrogance. The recovery is not real for the masses and that's why they don't believe it exists! Anyone who believes otherwise needs to get with reality. The government has recently classified 48% of Americans as being either poor (16%) or low-income (32%). Economic conditions are terrible for the masses! Accept it and make the best of it, but don't deny it.

Class tends to determine how people vote. The poor don't care what Mitt Romney's record as a vulture capitalist at Bain was. They were going to vote against him anyway. But there still needs to be campaigning on issues like this because it speaks to the downwardly mobile, union sections of the middle class. Again, we need things like this as part of being pragmatic; as part of having a broad reach that includes middle class people (i.e. basically independents/centrists). Only by developing a broad center-left alliance can we win.

Now I say that class tends to determine how people vote, so what do I mean by class? Well here I'm going to break with the conventional Marxist definition. I define class by wealth and by access to it rather than by ones relationship to the production and distribution of goods and services (the latter being the conventional Marxist definition). In other words, the most accurate way of defining the class breakdown of society is "the poor, the middle class (and its two varieties of mobility: the upwardly mobile and the downwardly mobile), and the rich". This understanding is much less muddled and subjective than defining it in terms of say "the workers versus the capitalists". In today's America, "worker" is indeed a class status, but only as much as "black" and "Latino" and "woman" are. These are all expressions of class in that they all tend to adversely affect your social mobility; your access to wealth. But there are certainly a number of people within all of those demographic groups who are wealthy. That includes among workers. There are professional athletes and Hollywood actors and so forth. And there are low-income capitalists and, in many Third World countries, even starving capitalists (small-time street vendors and so forth). The world is complex. Access to capital is the best definition of class IMO because it consistently works in terms of defining one's social status. Why is that important? Because it helps you distinguish your base from your allies. Leftists should preferably have the poor as their base rather than unreliable middle class people. The poor are almost always leftists. They are reliable.

Shifting the overall center of debate leftward means two things: it means electing Democrats on the one hand and building independent political forces to their left on the other. Most leftists in this country seem to believe in doing the one thing to the exclusion of the other. That fact hurts both. Now to Occupiers, for example: why do we need Democrats in office? Because if we had a Republican president right now, Occupy would not exist! You see, politics in America among the masses (our masses anyway: the center-left majority), in as far as they move leftward, do so according to a two-stage process: first people try out the Democrats, then, when that experiment may be deemed failing, they move into the realm of independent politics standing to the left of the Democratic Party. If John McCain were president right now, those who are today Occupiers would simply be doubling down on their support for the Democratic Party instead. They would be confined to the first stage of this process. And yet, of course, it is also important to have an independent organization and independent movements standing left of the Democrats in order to both push the Democratic Party leftward on the one hand and open up alternatives for a viable third, independent left wing party should the Democrats refuse to cooperate on the other. But third parties will not be viable in this country until, and to the extent that, the masses (the center-left majority) believe that the Democratic Party option has been tried and exhausted. That is reality. That is where the masses are in their thinking. We need to relate to that and apply the mass line principle (another take-away from my Maoist days): the masses may not always be with us, but we must always be with the masses. Accordingly, we should NOT support the current third party ventures that run in opposition to the Democratic Party. The result will simply be a Republican Party victory by way of our division. Divide and conquer is how wars, and indeed conflicts in general, are won by the one side or the other. Strategically then, we need to maximize the broad unity of our side and the sectarian division of the other side. At this time, therefore, we need to have political organization that's independent of the Democratic Party, but not independent organization that's hostile toward the Democratic Party; that only benefits at the Democratic Party's expense. Scientific-minded leftists need to have a strategic understanding of this two-stage process. The election of a Republican president this fall will force the left onto the defensive. It will leave us fighting for our lives rather than with the ability to go on the offensive. So yes, while we certainly should be critical of the president's many shortcomings as a centrist, we do still need to vote for him ultimately regardless!

In the long run, reducing the Republican Party to a minor party status is what will create the political space for a powerful left wing third party to come into existence in a way that can seriously contest elections, and it will weaken the 1% as a whole. That should be our near-term goal. As for long-term goals...goals for a different stage of American political life...we have differences as to what those should be and can hash them out as we go, but within the overarching framework of unity.

 

We have 4 major parties in power in this country at the moment, and there is tremendous overlap: there are RINO Republicans (the stalwart traditional GOP); there is the upstart but rapidly increasingly influential TEA Party Republicans; there are conservative Democrats, and there are liberal Democrats.

Conservative Democrats are, right now, by far the weakest group. At one time, they held the seats of power in the Dem Party, but no longer do: they have been co-opted by strident leftists in vein of Pelousy and Reid. This largest struggle is between the TEA Party and the RINOs. The future of this country will be determined by the strength of TEA Party electability.

There is no room for a 'powerful leftist 3rd party'; it won't happen. This country is center right, and has very conservative social beliefs. You need look no farther than the black culture to realize and understand that it is perhaps the most socially conservative group in the US: they simply haven't found the right political home at the moment; they've been fully convinced by the leftist siren song of Democrats.

But that grip is weakening. We are about to see a rebirth of Conservatism in this country, and it will be a good thing when mixed with modern civility and Federalism (which is endemically Libertarian).

 

That's your opinion as a self-described libertarian. You will duly note that I said nothing of "liberalism" anywhere. You mentioned black people, for instance. Black people do not mainly vote according to cultural issues. They mainly vote to get out of poverty. Welfare mothers don't care who is more socially liberal and who is more socially conservative. They care about survival; about economic issues. And relative to economic questions, America is unquestionably center-left. That's why huge majorities in every poll on such subjects have consistently indicated support for things like nationalizing the health care system, nationalizing the banks, increasing taxes on the rich, raising the minimum wage, leaving Social Security intact as is, implementation of public works programs as a means of job creation, etc. etc. etc. You know that as well as I do.

That's not to say that most people are socialists like yours truly. They aren't. Most people are simply committed to the principle that social mobility (not per se social equality) should be maximized. But that too is changing as the American Dream of 100% social mobility is more and more becoming exactly that: a pipe dream. About one-third of Americans now believe that the country does not benefit from having a wealthy class at all. In a three-party system or a four-party system, that would amount to enough support to win an election. The central object of this thread was to hash out a means of getting from here to there.

 

American leftism has reached its saturation point....(thanks Obama!)

No rational human being can be privy to new media's countinuous exposure of progressive leftist agenda and intellectually dishonest tactics, or peer across the pond, or look at unsustainable US deficits and debt progressivism has wrought....
and believe more centrally planned, authoritarian collectivism is even remotely possible....

and those who manage to ignore all these things, are simply bitter, envious, lazy trash who irrationally find virtue in parasitically existing off the fruits of another's labor.

 

Crazy right-winger propaganda aside, though -- does voting democrat really help us? Obama's administration has put the left-wing agenda into a holding pattern.

 

A holding pattern? More like it has crashed and burned.

 

No, it's still there. It just hasn't gained any of the expected ground. It's doing well in terms of how Americans view it -- as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the poor get sick of that -- but in terms of policy, we're still basically where we were with Bush, I think.

 

OP doesn't really have a thesis statement, so I'm not 100% sure what she's trying to say, so I'll just nitpick:

Attacking Mitt Romney will not strengthen the leftist movement. It will only weaken Mitt Romney and frustrate conservatives if he loses. As the Tea Party proved, frustrated conservatives are not weakened conservatives. If your long-term goal is weakening the rightist movement enough to reshape the US's political landscape, then your focus shouldn't be on elections but on improving the quality of debate in this country and thereby helping your opponents "see the light".

When faced with undeniable evidence one's view is wrong, the typical reaction is to withdraw and never bring up that view again. For instance, homophobes still exist in large numbers within the ranks of the elderly, but they are mostly silent about it, so they might as well not exist as far as the national debate is concerned. The only way to achieve your lofty goal of weakening the rightist movement is to present 'undeniable evidence' to as many rightists as you can.

This is not as impossible as it sounds; I believe I've done it on many occasions. Just keep the tone of debate reasonable and aggressively pursue the root fallacy of the other guy's belief. It helps if the conversation is one-on-one and in person (it is almost impossible to convince people if they can easily ignore you). Good luck.

 

The single best long term strategy to advance a leftist agenda in the United States is to agitate for a large amnesty for illegals with a path to citizenship. A vanguard needs a proletariat to lead and the working class has become a smaller percentage of the population as the economy has shifted to more "information" like careers. Therefore, you need to import a new working class. Large numbers of uneducated, manual labors are perfect fodder both for unionism (as the unions have slowly come to accept immigrants) and are readily "lead" and can be mobilized easily to support an expansion of the welfare state since they will be the prime beneficiaries. It's a long term process but if there was an amnesty program in place this year (and I think the Obama administration will probably propose something new on immigration since this is an election year) in 10 years you could have maybe 12 million new voters who would lean heavily Democrat and could be used to push the Democratic party further left. Another amnesty will attract more illegals and will create more political pressure for another amnesty, leading to the opportunity to push the country further left.

 

Perhaps it won't be the economic issues that brings down conservatisim, but instead social issues. I can't see most people getting inolved with economic issues for the heck of it, but most people do care about one form of social issues or another.

 

I've never heard the axiom "It's the social issues, stupid"...

 

Well I guess we learn something every day.

 

Yeah, cultural issues (at least by themselves and as a primary focus) are not realistically going to swing the pendulum in our direction. Just look at the polls. It's easy to see that economics are what's on people's minds.

Daybreaker:

As to whether we need to re-elect Obama and the Democrats, as you've called into question, there's no question about that in my view. As someone who has been both a reformist (circa 1998-2007), and a Marxist revolutionary (circa 2007-2011), and who has been on both sides of the 'electing Democrats' issue corresponding to those respective periods, I feel like I know what the arguments of both sides are. The core arguments of the anti-voting/anti-Democrat left are moral, not practical, e.g. 'the Democrats aren't principled enough / don't do enough to stand up for progressive policies and ideas'. I won't call that into question because there's a lot of truth to those points. But the real question in the practical is what the alternative is. We all know what the practical alternative is: the victory of Romney and the Republicans. Does the rest even matter?

Again, return to my two-stage theory from the OP: if people are to move beyond the Democratic Party in the future, they (our masses; the center-left majority) need to first see that option as exhausted, which clearly they largely do not. Separating ourselves from the masses to go on some puritanical, posturing ego trip will get us nowhere. Authentic populists are not in a position to seriously compete with the Democrats in this stage of American history. Therefore we need forms of political independence that are essentially non-hostile toward the Democratic Party at this time. A dialectical (i.e. back-and-forth) relationship between political independence on the one hand and the Democratic Party on the other must be maintained in this stage, IMO.

Emagatem:

Yeah sorry about the disorganization. I was in a hurry when writing that and just wanted to make sure I got all my thoughts out there. I didn't have time to concern myself with structure.

Anyhow, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply! I agree that we should seek the high road of not making things unduly personal in terms of debate tactics...but, at the same time, we do need to have a debate, and I mean over real issues. Sometimes that means we have to strongly disagree, not just go along to get along. Concerning the Bain Capital issue, for example, I think it is important to raise that model of economic "development" as a legitimate subject for debate since Mr. Romney is doing so anyway. As someone who is, in fact, opposed to private equity, I don't think the Obama team goes far enough with the topic. They frankly do try to make it too personal toward Mr. Romney. This is an opportunity to look at the whole morality of the most vulgar forms of vulture capitalism and perhaps decide once and for all whether we consider practices like the forcible bankrupting of companies for a profit to be within the realm of acceptability. Disgustingly parasitic corporations like Bain Capital are the bane of my existence. (Pun intended.) (My apologies to parasites everywhere for the unfair comparison to human actions.) Addressing the principle can, in fact, shift the range of debate in this country. Taking the subject off the agenda altogether will not. That is my opinion.

Lil Mike:

I gather that the post in question was likely sarcastic (hence the references to "amnesty"), but I think there is actually a small nugget of truth buried in there. You highlight the point (however sardonically) that a real proletariat (impoverished people grouping) is an important factor in shifting debates leftward in an economic sense. That is true. And yes the growing Latino population is likely to have exactly that effect over the course of generations. Standing with them and supporting a path to citizenship for the oppressed, impoverished, and disenfranchised, can be helpful in that regard. But it is more than Latinos. The laissez-faire directionality of policy in general is going to steadily add to the ranks of the American proletariat over the years in a number of ways, including through increased downward mobility among middle class people. Look at the stats: in 1970, 65% of Americans lived in middle class neighborhoods. Today 44% still do. Oh yes, that definitely affects our ability to have a general discussion about inequality, as per the Occupy movement. And that difference most certainly is not just immigration.

 

ROTFLMAO
Right-wingers consider civility to be a sign of weakness.
Good luck with getting that mob of ********* retards to play along with your notion of civility.

 

I am happy to vote FOR Obama, not against Romney. I think that he has done a good job dealing with a huge mess left to him, and while I would have hoped he had done more in terms of healthcare, he is easily the best man or woman for the job of potus in 2012.

 

Right now? No. Economic policies are more important than social ones. But, after we get ourselves out of the Great Recession, than social issues will take a more important role.

 

The duopoly is on its last leg. After the last couple of decades, conservatives are going to war with neocons. While the neocons have the power, the true small government conservatives are the youth of the right. After 8 years of Obama those who typically vote democrat will split and start chewing each other to pieces as well. Despite all the social engineering, those in power can't escape the fact the next generation is smarter and not as easily duped as the last. The system of pseudo-representation, where no matter who is in power, big corrupt government keeps growing is over. I can see many things happening over the course of the next few decades, but it will be crazy no matter which happens. But know this, as globalization takes more and more of a hold, national sovereignty vs world governance will be more important than any other issue. You all will have to decide if you are an American leftist or a global one. And just like with the right, your best friend of yesterday will be your new enemy.

 

Aaahh, I follow. Yes the principal contradiction may indeed change in time. War had kinda been deemed the main issue previous to the Great Recession, for example. I know what you mean. You may be right about that long-term prediction, but it remains to be seen.

Well cool, I guess. Not me. I can think of half a dozen candidates running for president whom I think are better, but none of them will likely garner so much as 0.5% of the overall vote. An Obama vote for me is an anti-Romney vote and a vote to re-establish the momentum of leftward directionality in U.S. politics. The president has done a number of good things: taking the first step along the path of health care reform, the first step along the path of reinvigorating financial reform, reaching an agreement obliging automakers to double gas mileage standards, bringing all U.S. troops out of Iraq (rather than just most), and, perhaps most importantly, introducing major cuts in military spending that render long-term foreign occupations off the national agenda...all those things and more come to mind in the "good" category. He's also done a lot for gay rights and for women's rights. In the former category, we have seen the gays included in affirmative action programs, covered under hate crime laws, allowed into the military on an open and equal basis, and of course the president has recently endorsed same-sex marriage and refused to enforce the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. In the latter category, we have witnessed a return to previous equal pay standards (which had been suspended by the courts in 2007) and provisions in the Affordable Care Act that assure free contraception coverage for those on it, among other things. At the same time though, there are a lot of things the president has done that I strongly disapprove of, including, not least, expanding the Afghanistan War, increasing the Bush era crackdown on immigration, and embracing an anti-environmentalist "all of the above" energy policy, not to mention continuing the ongoing privatization of the school system (which is something that affects me personally as a teacher), and partially privatizing the space program. So there have been a lot of good things and bad things, IMO. But anything Obama has screwed up, Romney is already pledged to do worse. After this election cycle, foreign war will no longer be a major issue unless Romney wins. Obama is pledged to end our combat mission in Afghanistan next summer (summer 2013, just months after the initial big cuts to military spending start to take affect, uncoincidentally). Romney wants to restore the previous level of military spending. Obama has shortcomings in the area of immigration policy, but supports the Dream Act. Romney, on the other hand, believes that Arizona's infamous racially-driven 2010 policy should be considered a model for the whole nation. You see what I'm saying? But economics are the main issue in this election, and there is a contest of two basic trajectories: fundamentally, a tax and spend trajectory or a cut and sell trajectory. Obama has proposed a new stimulus package (the American Jobs Act) to be funded by an increase in the tax rates of the wealthy and by the closing of those convenient tax loopholes that Mr. Romney and other super-rich people enjoy. Mr. Romney, on the other hand, has endorsed budget plans that call for both Medicare and Social Security to be partially privatized, for 4 million Americans to be taken off of food stamps, for Medicaid funding to be cut, for the corporate tax rate to be cut in half while the payroll taxes of workers are raised, and of course for Obama's health care and financial reforms to be scrapped. (All of that is not to mention his proposals for the establishment of a China-styled special economic zone (er, "Reagan" economic zone, excuse me) here in this country to allow for more convenient exploitation.) Obama shouldn't be taking credit for the current economic state because it's a sorry one (not to mention largely dishonest to do so). He should be assailing Congressional obstructionism, as he did in the latter part of last year.

 

OWS protesters dump feces and urine in bank lobby





Thanks for lobbing that softball.

 

You make a very good point. I'm still not convinced one way or the other, but you've given me food for thought. I will continue chewing on it.

 

The majority is center-left socially, but center-right economically. The fact we don't have a party that truly reflects that tells all. And if you guys think for a second workers care about gay marriage when their kids need food on the table, you're nuts. Workers and small business owners are the lifeblood of this nation. Not people playing Xbox, talking politics, nor is it people who sleep in every day after partying all night, but whom are very opinionated and left leaning. Those are not the people to put your chips behind. Ignore me if you want, but if a strong nationalist figure emerges, who caters to workers and small business owners, while ignoring bums and elite, the climate has been set in motion for his movement to grow like wild fire and take control with ease.

 

THIS is why you (collective) people cannot be taken seriously. Lies.

That picture is not of an OWS protestor. It is of a peace protester at an event in Portland in 2007. Long before Obama came into office.

It was originally posted here: http://thehammondreport.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-protester-(*)(*)(*)(*)s-on.html

Here's the blogger's "tongue-in-cheek apology":

When you folks start being honest, I'll start believing.

ADDED: Your first picture is one of a protest in Europe. Most likely Germany, from the license plate on the car. Another lie...

 

That's the exact opposite of the truth. Seriously.

 

Dying shots from Dinosaurs

 

You're nuts. Americans are not a native people. They are a mixture of all people, whose DNA, regardless of ethnicity, is specifically of the type that doesn't trust power to begin with. Right or wrong, they all fled here to escape the tyranny of somewhere. Pioneer, independent types. No I don't mean raccoon hats, I'm talking in the blood that flows through their veins. You have it. No one wants socialistic economics, except people who don't really want to try their hardest, and elite who know for a fact such a system guarantees their station eternal. The man with some charisma who understands the people of this nation will wear a crown before this is said and done.