On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 03:17 PM, <gilschaeffer82@...> wrote:
What's the cart and what's the horse? For more than thirty years, the ideological and political goal of the Russian Social-Democrats was to establish a democratic republic, the same goal as that of all the parties of the Second International. Then in 1918 the Bolsheviks shut down the Constituent Assembly. Whether that action was right or wrong given their conditions, it was the agitation for a Constituent Assembly over the previous thirty years that formed the ideological core of the revolution. Your formulation implies that since we now know that terror will be necessary, we can dispense with the demand for democracy. As Rosa Luxemburg said in her criticism of Lenin and Trotsky in "The Russian Revolution," we shouldn't make a virtue out of necessity. Our conditions are different than the Russian conditions of famine and war. I think your appeal to terror is a dead end and we should still demand democracy.Going straight to a constitutional convention--if that were possible--might unleash all sorts of gimmick-crazed all-American Gee Whiz bullshit that would hand a victory to the forces of the right.
Some reforms that might be passed short of that: abolition of the Electoral College, federal supervision and authentication of the vote in all states, abolition of large political donations by wealthy individuals and corporate entities.
There is no need for the so-called states to be anything but administrative divisions of the federal government with a degree of regional autonomy. States' rights is a nonsense.
Much could be accomplished if agreement could be achieved on a few simple points like the above.
None of this is achievable, unfortunately, without the country's having to go through the probable neofascist triumph in the upcoming midterm elections. If that is bad enough, the constitution (as a body of practice) will fail completely, if hit hasn't done so already, and we may be de facto in a state of civil war. In any case, Clarence Thomas and his fellow Nazis on the Supine Court have announced their program, which they will carry out unless physically prevented from doing so.
Some have suggested a general strike, or series of general strikes. This would be good. More so-called "mobilizations (i.e. big demonstrations) can't hurt, but they have to go beyond what we saw around the George Floyd murders and avoid the anarchist bs about occupations creating a revolution. The big demos of living memory all appealed to a constitutional body of practice that the current Supreme Court has now utterly destroyed.
I really feel that some form of armed resistance--as unlike the antifa/BlackBloc nonsense as possible--may be called for. A fat lot anyone my age could contribute to that, alas--even with the assistance of Comrade Mossberg and his friends, supposing that one could actually fire the shotgun without breaking something. Still, there is no reason why this has to be an either/or. A movement can defend itself against unofficial terrorism and state violence and still advance democratic demands, QED. in effect, it appears that "we" now have little choice in the matter, as the die appears to have been cast and some form--probably a very weak form, but nonetheless immensely dangerous and destructive of neofascism appears to be all but unavoidable.