My proposal for dealing with this dilemma is that the left must first declare that there is no solution to our country's problems within our current undemocratic constitutional system and that we will not endorse any candidate who does not call for a new democratically elected constitutional convention. That will draw a clear line of demarcation between us and the leadership of the Democratic Party. However, drawing this political line of demarcation should not rule out using the Democratic Party primary system or ballot line (or Republican for that matter if the situation should arise) for our candidates. Operating within this forced electoral arrangement is not automatically debilitating as long as we stick to our principles. Sticking to a clear democratic political position will highlight the hypocrisy and double-talk of those Democrats who claim they are defending democracy. In order to do that we cannot identify ourselves simply as members of the Democratic Party but must establish an identity separate from the Democratic Party leadership. I have suggested something like a "Democratic Constitution Group or Caucus" as a name, but the name is secondary to the ideology. As for voting for Democrats vs. Republicans, I think that is pretty much a non-issue. I follow Lenin's logic in his advice to the British Communist Party vis a vis the Labour Party: The Labour Party leadership was bourgeois and imperialist, but to wean away its working class following within a first-past-the-post electoral system meant that the Communists could not abstain from or split the vote at that time. That would be left-wing sectarianism and counterproductive. We find ourselves in a similar situation Voting for Democrats does not mean endorsement of the Party leadership. It is a purely tactical necessity forced upon us because millions of genuinely honest democratic voters see no alternative yet. We have to take the anti-authoritarian sentiments of these voters seriously and work with them however we can to promote consistent democratic values, policies, and constitutional transformation.  

https://www.facebook.com/zakhar.popovych/posts/pfbid024yFtYi4ZXyAyFjWcjr6oYqpu8MEXGuucN8jmtdJEweVWoWYYNtqBpCS5B4jbcFVsl

Zakhar Popovych
·
Dear friends, as some of you are interested in my participation in the
Workers’ Resistance group
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_Resistance) two decades ago, I
should confirm it. It is true that I had tried to be simultaneously a
member of all Trotskyist Internationals. It was due to my deeply wrong
ultra-left position of the time that all Trotskyist organizations
should either join one true International or are not “true” Trotskyist
by themselves. The outcome was opposite to reunification – growing of
mistrust and degeneration of meaningful discussion among effected
Trotskyist organizations and discreditation of Trotskyism in Ukraine.
This behavior was the consequence of our political and geographical
isolation, the lack of political and life experience (most of us were
twenty years old or younger), naivety, marginalization of the whole
society. But I don't want to defend this rough political and personal
mistake.

You can’t reunify small Marxist sectarian groups by just convincing
them with good arguments and exposing them to the objective reality.
It’s not how it works. Moreover, there are some structural problems in
almost all these organizations that make them not interested in what
is really going on in other countries and often disconnected from
grassroot movement even in their own. Unconscious postcolonial way of
building the “International” where central leadership in some
imperialist country of the Global North “knew better” what is going on
in your country is unfortunately very typical. This is now becoming
obvious in discussion about Ukraine among people who never visited it,
never attempted to learn the language, never study situation on the
ground in any detail, but have the “true” geopolitical analysis that
states mainly that struggle of Ukrainian workers is not that important
and could be sacrificed for maintaining the opportunistic belief that
their political position was generally right, and they can safely
continue to do nothing.

The support Workers’ Resistance obtained from some international
groups 20 years ago was composed of material donation in value of
around $7K was very small and was almost entirely and immediately used
to support day to day activities of the organization. And activities
were unfortunately turning more and more from grassroot Ukrainian work
towards deep dive into meaningless inter-sectarian discussions. And of
course, I spend much of my personal funds to support the Workers’
Resistance and never obtain any financial benefits from it.
My reflections on the political mistakes of early 2000s persuaded me
that true grassroot internationalism should be built on the bases of
honest, transparent and respectful political discussion and true
desire to hear the voice of the grassroots of all countries, and first
of all voices of the working class on the Global South that is
suffering the most from imperialist aggression and exploitation.

14 comments , 4 shares.


Michael Pugliese

On Nov 4, 2022, at 8:28 AM, anthonyboynton@... wrote:

The Democratic Party is an enabler of neo-fascism because of its core principles of defending the anti-democratic Constitution and the anti-Democratic two party system.

This sounds "Third Period" to me.

Mark

A week or so ago, there was a little discussion on this list about “tactical voting”. The League for the Revolutionary Party had written, and posted on this list a document arguing for a “tactical vote” for the Democratic Party in next week’s elections.

 

I think the LRP is making a big mistake, drinking the Kool-Aid of defeatist reformism as has most of the old left in the United States. I am not arguing with them, or others who think like them, that the extreme right currently led by Trump is not extremely dangerous, but I am arguing that the Democratic Party is in no way an obstacle to the rise of the right.

 

The Democratic Party is an enabler of neo-fascism because of its core principles of defending the anti-democratic Constitution and the anti-Democratic two party system.

 

The LRP’s argument boils down to the idea that electing a Democratic Congress will do two things, it will protect us against the full onslaught of Trumpist neofascism, buy us time to organize and defend ourselves, and protect our voting rights.  

 

Here is what they wrote,

 

“Unlike the Republicans, however, the Democrats generally rely on the votes of people of color in order to have a chance of winning power. And so they can, if only for that reason, be expected to oppose attacks on voting rights, which underpin all other legal protections. For that essential reason, in the absence of a realistic working-class electoral alternative, socialists must favor a Democratic victory in the coming elections in order to keep the Republicans out of power.”

 

And,

 

“A Democratic victory will therefore not vanquish the far-right menace, but it will provide working-class and oppressed people a greater opportunity to organize and defend themselves. Leading Democrats have provided one focus for such post-election struggle by promising that if they maintain control of the House and expand their control of the Senate, they will override the Senate filibuster rule that requires a super-majority to pass legislation, in order to make abortion-rights protections the law of the land. Such an effort would open the possibility to demand that the Democrats do the same for voting rights and more. And if the far-right Supreme Court majority continues to thwart the will of the people and overturn established rights and legal protections, the Democrats could be pressured to expand the number of justices so that a new democratic majority can be appointed.”

 

And,

 

“A significant number of Democrats, including Biden, have declared that this is a life-or-death election in which fundamental democratic rights are at stake. These politicians can be held to that standard and, as we have noted, they can be called on to end the Senatorial filibuster, enact federal voting and abortion rights legislation that overrides recent Supreme Court decisions and even alter the makeup of the Court. They can also keep open the January 6 committee to expose the attempted coup.”

 

A brief look at history shows that the Democratic Party has NEVER defended anybody’s democratic rights until, and only, the rise of mass working class movements threatened the system and the Democrats own control over working class voters. In the 20^th century this happened twice: in the 1930’s and the 1960’s. All of the New Deal concessions were made to appease the rising trade union and working class movements. Similarly, ALL of the concessions made by LBJ’s Democrats were made to appease the mass youth movement, and especially the ghetto rebellions against racism and war.

 

Even if some Democrats sincerely believe they should do something nice, something good, something to defend democratic rights, they won’t because they can’t. The can’t because they are part of a party designed to make change as slow and difficult as possible. Don’t ask whether Joe Biden sincerely wants to end the filibuster. Ask whether Joe Manchin does. Don’t ask whether Biden wants to enact federal voting and abortion rights legislation, override recent Supreme Court decisions, or even alter the makeup of the Supreme Court … ask whether Joe Manchin does.

 

The LRP had been among the last holdouts among the various self-styled Marxists in the United States who defended, at least in the abstract, the idea that revolutionaries should struggle to form an independent political party of the working class. Nevertheless, that struggle is still alive, but barely, in the electoral vehicles thrown up in past struggles: principally the Peace and Freedom Party in California, and the Green Party nationally. It is alive here and there in independent socialist electoral campaigns like the one that elected Kshama Sawant to the Seattle City Council.

 

More important, the working class movement is growing in the pores of United states society through the mass demonstrations of Black Lives Matter and the Women’s movement, through the new wave of unionization, and in ways unseen through the blinkered lens of the mass media.

 

The LRP like most of the other remnants of the Old New Left will not influence this election, but they can slow down the formation of an independent working class political party by causing confusion among however many activists they influence.

 

What should be done? First of all we should counter all illusions in the Democratic Party rather than feed them. Second of all we should organize. Third of all, we should run independent socialist and working class candidates. It’s an old formula that hasn’t worked yet, but supporting the Democrats is an old formula that has proven results: cooptation of ambitious movement leaders into the Democratic Party and demobilization of mass movements.

 

Anthony

Ukraine War: Spontaneous Protests of Soldiers of the Russian Army

Down with Putin’s imperialist war! Money for poor regions – not for killing the Ukrainian people!

Emergency Statement of the RCIT and Socialist Tendency (Russia), 3 November 2022

https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/ukraine-war-spontaneous-protests-of-soldiers-of-russian-army/

John, you are correct on this statement. However, I have encountered the real words of their member Pawel Wargan a hardcore Stalinist who openly seeks to ally with Russia against NATO. On the surface, Lula's PI presents as a pacifist but in fact, the significant people behind politics in Eastern Europe are openly engaged to defend "national states" vs. "globalism", i.e. support the multipolar world promoted by Putin.

Why is it relevant? Lula and other Latin American bourgeoisie leaders are seeking "assistance" from Russia-USA or China-USA conflict to plat on two pianos and get benefits from one camp versus another. It is not an accident that they call for the new "Non-Aligned Movement" which is a clear desire to actually support a conflict-driven world by supporting one side vs. another (typical Stalinist, reformist and nationalist mindset in oppressed countries).

So it is obvious that it is not even a pacifist or anti-war statement but the most pro-war statement and position because it implies that the Great Powers shall engage in conflicts to perform their politics of non-alliance (btw alliance imply the formation of great power camps which fight against each other).

the most concise set of non-sequiturs I've seen for a while.

Walter queries if there is anyone on this list actually in Ukraine?

Well, yeah, the person whose thread this is about in the first place. I'm wondering why this is important 'cuz everyone who has commented has taken different position. I haven't been to Cuba in 40 years now but I know enough to suggest that U.S. actions toward it are wrong. But I don't live there, so...is my POV invalid?

Yet the nearly unanimous opinion is all out in favor of the war.

So...no...the majority

position of those who've voiced and an opinion are totally and absolutely AGAINST the war. What do you not quite get about "Russia Out of Ukraine Now!"???

No word by these pro-war voices against ANY aspect of US Ukraine policy.

Hmm...well, I can remember a few:

1. that the U.S. is getting ready to betray Ukraine in it's just fight to defend itself from Russian Imperialism
2. The U.S. should give whatever Ukraine wants to defend itself in the above mentioned fight.
3. The U.S. should NOT try to force Ukaine into surrendering territory for "peace".
4. The U.S. should NOT try to force Ukraine into NATO or (IMO) worse: the EU
5. That U.S should NOT impose the neo-liberal roll back of workers rights on Ukraine (which it has done already it appears).

I"m sure there are more, maybe others have some stuff to add...

For example, the red carpet for 100,000 Ukrainians as Haitians are shipped back.

So that is not an example of "aspects of US Ukraine policy" but aspects of the U.S. border policy. the problem here, Walter, is that you are engaging in "whataboutism". That YOU counterpoise the compeltely just struggle of Haitian immigrants to that of Ukrainian ones is really...I'm not sure honestly what to call it. What DO you call someone who counterpoises the struggle to immigrate to the US by two different sets of oppressed people fleeing violence and hatred? ALL Ukrainians and Haitians fleeing their home land should be let into the U.S. Yes?

David

1968 thru 1969, I wasn't in the Panthers but I was in the BSU at LACC and was LACC's representative to the Black Students Alliance (BSA), mother body of all BSUs in the greater LA area. Now the LACC branch was composed of an unlikely alliance of Panthers, (their arch rivals) The US Organization, Nation of Islam adherents, Viet Nam war veterans, assorted hippies, bippies, free spirits and at least one internationalist communist, me.

 

The BSA, as a whole, was pro Panther and anti-US and yet despite this affinity, the Panthers wanted to subjugate the LACC BSU to its will. We said "Naw" and the Panthers said that they would meet us at SW LA Jr College. So one warm day in '68 there were some 10 or so BSAers in coats waiting on them. I had my roommate's .38 over-under 2 shot derringer with bout 5 other bullets in a pocket. My roommate, fresh out the Marine Corps and given to jumping over bank counters, like most of the other BSA'ers carried either semi-automatic 9mms or .38 revolvers. They never showed and the harassment of the BSA ceased after that. The following winter in early '69 the Panthers and the US Org had a shootout on UCLA's campus leaving LA Panther leaders Bunchy Carter and John Huggins dead.

 

 

Quickly after that there was a police raid on the BSU at Carver Jr High School (sponsored and mentored by an iconic teacher of Japanese descent, Fred Kawano, most oft-clothed in a Mao suit with a Red Book in his jacket pocket). I previously on this list had posted a most similar accounting. The BSA ordered all BSU's out on strike and to close their schools down. LACC was the only successful one where we closed down and held for 2 1/2 days against right wing students backed by the LAPD. Here is what was interesting about that: at LACC there was no nevermind between Panthers and US Organization members. The LACC Union was too strong for that fratricidal bullshit. Prior to that the BSU in alliance with, our closest comrades, the Mexican-Amercian Student Association (MASA soon to be UMAS nee MECHA); along with SDA, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and assorted other hippies and bippies and assorted free spirits, etc had won control of the LACC Student Council, got black and brown studies and teachers and the newspapers ‘The Black Call’ and ‘El Machete’.

 

The killings at UCLA triggered a power struggle for control of the BPP in LA between Elmer ‘Geronimo’ Pratt and Julius (called ‘Julio’ (Jew-li-o)) Butler who lived in the apartment directly above my mother’s at 2807 Hillcrest 90016.

 

One time I came to see her and she had a most-worried look on her face and I said “Momma, what’s wrong?” She put a ‘whisper finger’ to her lips saying “Listen. They gonna kill somebody up there.”

 

I went up the stairs and knocked on the door and Julio opened the peep hole and let me in. I said “Julio, what’s going on?” I turned and saw two young men on their knees on the floor with some blood spots around them and a gun toting, I guess, Panther threatening to hit them again. He said “Imani, I think we got us two US niggers.”

 

One of them turned and I saw who it was. It was Felix from across the street. Felix was a good ‘red devil’- (seconal barbiturate-) -dropping dope fiend who lived across the street--As a digression, one day looking out my mother’s picture frame window I saw Felix full of ‘stumblers’ literally fall across the street. He started falling on the east side of Hillcrest and kept falling until gravity finally won out over will and he crashed into the bushes in front of our apartment--I snapped I said “Julio, that’s fckn Felix...from across the street. He ain’t no US nigger.” It later came to me that Julio was proving his ‘bona fides’, i.e. toughness to the other Panther. It’s another long story but Julio ended up testifying against ‘Geronimo’ and a murder trial that got ‘G’ a 25 year stay in the pen.

 

But one last story that brings back the LA Panther’s influence. The LA BPP’s office was at “41^st and Central” (later the name of location as title of a documentary about the LAPD's assault on and bombing of the office.) I had ‘jaywalked across Central when I heard the ‘squawk burp’ of a cop car. I panicked and ran into the Panthers’ office. Elaine Brown went out one or two doors to the south to a pool room and came out with 5 or 6 brothers...with pool cues. Cops left.

 

So I am the first to admit that we made a lot of mistakes. Sometimes we did more harm than good. But there was and is no ‘playbook’ to the making of a revolution but there are lessons that might be learned. First among them is that we cannot become what we are against. Militancy must be subject to ideals and not vice-versa.