The Intersectional Working Class Shall Be The Human Race (rough draft)

[forjusticethunders]

Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 03:41 PM - Edit history (2)

The 2016 Democratic Party primary has revealed some fundamental divisions in the left-wing progressive movement, divisions that, while not sufficient to prevent victory in November, will continue to be a sore spot going forward, with little sign of either side waning in power or influence. On one side, we have Bernie Sanders, championing a struggle against the class oppression represented by Wall Street, the banks and the entrenched political interests and a voice for disaffected movement progressives and millenials struggling with the uneven economic recovery, on the other side, we have Hillary Clinton, who represents the continuation of the power and strength of the "Obama coalition" - people of color, women, LGBT people, a demographic that has experienced significant oppression beyond class and economic issues, and appreciate Hillary Clinton's record of leadership and outreach despite various missteps over the years.

The question that emerges is, looking at the inability of the radical, class-oriented socialist (albeit a very moderate kind) of Sanders to gain a foothold among the Obama coalition that has become the base of the Democratic Party, what are economic progressives to do? Luckily, the failures of the Sanders campaign and the success of the Clinton campaign provides an answer that can potentially unify the two sides of the divide, expand the appeal of the message, and ultimately provide the political framework for radical change in America - a revolution if you will.

------------------------------------------------------------

First off, the question must be asked: What is the "Working Class"? It's a question that seems easy to answer, but in reality it's complex. Obviously if one is a worker, they are part of the working class. But when it comes to identification, how many people identify themselves as a "worker" first? The purely economic view of identity fails to capture all the various aspects of oppression that are distinct from economics, and not taking these factors into regard is a recipe for failure. So how would one rectify this? Simply put, while class and economic disprivilege impacts everyone without said privilege, different groups experience class oppression differently. So while a class approach can and will appeal to different marginalized groups, the socialist progressive must be cognizant, understanding and articulate in how class intersects with specific marginalized people. For example, take Ferguson. The killing of Michael Brown, while a major sparkpoint for the BlackLivesMatter movement, was a single incident in an entire system of racialized oppression where the black residents of Ferguson were, according to the Department of Justice report on Ferguson, used as a funding source for the city - excessively ticketed, excessively policed, excessively fined, etc.

To quote the report:

The department found that Ferguson Municipal Court has a pattern or practice of:

•Focusing on revenue over public safety, leading to court practices that violate the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection requirements.


•Court practices exacerbating the harm of Ferguson’s unconstitutional police practices and imposing particular hardship upon Ferguson’s most vulnerable residents, especially upon those living in or near poverty. Minor offenses can generate crippling debts, result in jail time because of an inability to pay and result in the loss of a driver’s license, employment, or housing.

This is where class, economics and race intersect. The socialist progressive politician MUST be able to speak to these issues. Equal pay is both a class issue and a gender issue (women are often the first to be fired during cutbacks, are often passed over for promotion, are often relegated to low level, low wage jobs, particularly women of color). Class impacts, say, a gay person's ability to escape a homophobic family, or a trans person's ability to begin transition (a process that involves significant financial expenditure) or move out of a state like North Carolina.

The socialist progressive must be able to accurately and insightfully see how the economic intersects with the personal, and adroitly shift between articulating this insight on many issues, and then tie all of this together into an intersectional working class program that not only addresses the shared issues that the working class shares, but addresses the unique issues that the various marginalized groups of the working class share.

-----------------------------------------------------
One issue that many leftists have is with communication and listening. All too often, people on the left are content to talk at people, or lecture, or preach about THEIR view of what the people they're supposedly serving need. It says a lot that a listening tour is treated with derision as opposed to encouraged. The socialist progressive who wishes to build an intersectional coalition must do the work of reaching out to their potential constituency, finding out what they want and need, finding out what issues they want the politician to amplify and work towards, and weave those issues into their platform. Furthermore, it is important not to denigrate the value of symbolic displays. When you make a speech and you're surrounded by a rainbow of POC, a diverse mix of men and women, and has LBGT representation, and even disabled persons, it sends a far different and more inclusive message than a speech showing you surrounded by largely white males. This should also be reflected in one's campaign staff - it shows a desire to listen to different voices (this especially applies if the politician is white and male, but even say, an African American person can't disregard Hispanic or Asian voices or representation). Diversity is strength. Finally, if a group criticizes you, or accuses you of being tone deaf, listen. Examine your policies and message and determine what about your message is causing that reactions. Having an ideology and message is important, but modifying that message based on feedback from the people you are fighting for is critical to creating an investment and connection from those people with you.



----------------------------------------------------------------
Organizing. This is what pulls people into your movement. But you need a coherent theory of organizing if you want to be successful. Now, let's say you're starting at the bottom - no national figures, not a lot of money, etc. How do you organize? This is where you apply the issues talked about previously. Get out into your local communities, find out what people are concerned about, find out how you can help, emphasize the potential power of the people to make change on a local level. Be responsive, be active, be involved. Furthermore, even if you are an insurgent or an outsider, it is critical to work with existing political structures, even if it requires compromise. Oftentimes, the existing local infrastructure already exists, it just needs an infusion of energy and passion to make it work to build local strength. And while internet/online organizing cannot replace boots on the ground, it CAN link local and state movements to similar ones in other states, and potentially "nationalize" certain issues (min wage, labor laws, LBGT rights) etc. Above all, do not fall into the trap of saying "both parties are the same" even if you have major disagreements with the Democrats - firstly, the Republicans are far worse no matter what, secondly, this line will alienate more people than it attracts, especially in states where the Democratic Party is the only defense for oppressed and marginalized people against a full on fascist onslaught, and finally, critical support (aka voting for the best option available) makes incumbent politicians more beholden to your movement - after all, a politician needs to listen to their voters to win.

Also critical to organizing is attracting non-voters, and registering them. Any political movement MUST have a robust and reliable apparatus for getting voters registered, especially in states with restrictive ID laws. Produce pamphlets, cards and other media that detail the process of getting registered, how to get the required ID, where and how to do it online, and depending on area, both in English and Spanish. Set up phonebanking campaigns through online media and if you have a lot of young volunteers, emphasize how important this is to the campaign. Encourage people to turn out for midterms even if you're not on the ballot. Get voters to see voting as an act of self-empowerment that is connected to their personal struggles and activism done on their behalf.

It's important to remember that this takes lots of time and a good amount of money and a good amount of legwork, and it won't see results right away. And in most cases, the socialist progressive will have to settle for changes short of their ideological leanings. But this cannot be seen as a defeat because firstly, incremental progress still will improve people's lives, which is why the socialist is in this fight to begin with. And furthermore, incremental progress often sets the stage for major progress. Civil Rights came about not just as large bills and court decisions, but due to a critical mass starting with the New Deal and building during World War II. LBGT rights started as a fringe, hated idea, growing through the decades into a massive expansions of both social acceptance and legal rights.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Negotiating and Compromise

Now that you've created a beachhead within a wider left-leaning movement, you will find that not everyone is as radical or as ambitious as you. You may have to work with people who are more conservative, more pragmatic/risk-averse, or may be intimidated by local or national or multinational business interests. For example, let's say you're running in a small Midwest precinct and you want to push through a minimum wage increase. One of the first things you need to do is talk with the local capitalist oppressors (speaking tongue in cheek of course) and at least hear what they'd be willing to accept. Obviously, if 15 dollars an hour will put them out of business, they're going to vigorously oppose you. But if you compromise and get 12.50 with either tax credits or subsidies then the resistance of all but the most ideological free marketeers may soften, even if they would have really wanted 10 dollars, 8 dollars or no minimum wage and the repeal of child labor laws (actually that last group are the people you probably won't be convincing). The key thing is that you've gotten positive change, you've created a positive working relationship with people who are technically your ideological adversaries, and you've built up your reputation in terms of "getting things done". It's that kind of stuff that will make that moderate conservative business owner think the following:

1: Hey, those pinko commies aren't so bad!
2: I'd vote for the Republican but they're running Trump again and this time he wants to build a wall around the entire planet to protect us from REAL aliens. Guess I'm sending 25 dollars to the socialist.

Again, obviously this guy is not your base, and you shouldn't be giving too much leeway, and there will obviously be times you need to say not no, but hell no, to some new tax cut or fracking permit. But being a good politician is knowing when to hold, and when to fold and when to bluff. The key is being willing to settle, but starting negotiations from as left a point as you can. Furthermore, having access to business means that you become a vector through which the voices of the marginalized can be heard by the powerful.

-------------------------------------------
More on Marginalized People

Try to speak out on as many issues affecting marginalized persons as you can, both local and national. Depending on your profile, you may even want to go there in person. Establish a strong record of fighting those intersectional fights. If you're running in a state with a bathroom bill, protest it as much as you can, and don't be shy about going for a symbolic message if you simply don't have the power to stop it. Speak out on women's issues, LBGT issues, Hispanic issues, use access gained through political power to speak for the oppressed, etc etc. Sample issues:

Equal pay (especially when the pay differential stems from discriminatory attitudes like a bias against married/pregnant women, or a lack of promotion opportunities)
Access to treatment for trans and gender-nonconforming people especially via medical coverage
Anti-bullying and pro-tolerance education in schools

It was stated before but the composition of your staff is very important. POC, women, trans people, make them your constituency and reflect that in who you pick to advise you. This isn't pandering or machine politics or anything like that, this is showing that you value their voices and perspectives which you may have.

[Starry Messenger]

1. K&R

Good program. You should run for office!

[forjusticethunders]

3. I've thought about it

Maybe in 10-20 years though.

I also have more to add to this, for example, how a politician can link up with non-political movements (for example trying to unionize a Wal-Mart, trying to win higher wages), or more historical parallels (for example, progressives NEED NEED NEED NEED NEED to get onto local school boards, and that's how movement conservatives did it, they started with the school boards, which not only deepen the bench, but gives them more influence on the structure of the schools).

[obamanut2012]

2. LOve this

Bookmarking to read more thoroughly later.

[TBF]

4. Well this is a far more verbose way to telling people to settle -

but it all comes down to this statement here doesn't it: "the socialist progressive will have to settle for changes short of their ideological leanings"

I'm going to post an OP on this - if we are changing this group I think it needs to be a group decision.

[socialist_n_TN]

5. Yeah, that's a left-reformist position........

NOT a socialist position. At least not a revolutionary socialist position. It's akin to social democracy. If your opposition to capitalism is based on the fact that you will NEVER get fairness OF ANY SORT short of a social revolution, then "...changes short of their ideological leanings" would be a non-starter. Here's the deal, if you're FORCED to "compromise" for less because of the makeup of the social forces involved, well, that's objective reality, but if you go into the struggle thinking you're going to compromise, that's not a principled stand.

As to the social issues, that's a place where Marxists and populists, even left populists like Sanders, differ. Marxists have ALWAYS recognized special oppression and super-exploitation as key factors in the class struggle.

[forjusticethunders]

6. The issue is that:

1: Revolutionary socialism is virtually impossible unless the working class as a whole is facing conditions similar to the late 19th/early 20th century, and while that could happen in the future, it's not likely now, partially because of incremental gains that past generations of socialists have won.

2: Revolutionary socialism hasn't worked out well for the working class - see virtually every historical example. The trauma and chaos of systemic breaks of this sort, coupled with both internal and external opposition, has led these efforts to degenerate into authoritarian states that eventually reproduce quasi-capitalist relations. The *best* revolutionary socialism has been able to do is Cuba, which is largely a dictatorship, albeit a dictatorship that isn't *that* repressive as dictatorships go and has been fairly responsive to popular needs.

3: Yes it's not as principled to recognized that you will be going in forced to compromise but it may be more effective. Keep in mind that in regards to social issues, the incremental "long march through the institutions" has been wildly successful? Why? Because incremental changes alter the ecosystem of what is possible, even while having to compromise with what is possible. I would say, for example, that the election of Obama made the Sanders insurgency possible, because even though Obama didn't govern as a progressive, he ran and presented himself as one (albeit a pragmatic one), and that cleared space for an even more forthright progressivism to emerge (obviously not by itself but in conjunction with other historical and material factors).

The problem with left-socialism is that we're still trying to win based on ideas in vogue 50-100 years ago - basically the idea of this big, systemic, revolutionary "smashing" of the current system. But what that's really doing is shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic; you need to build the political structures, alternative institutions, and class consciousness needed to step in and replace the old institutions, otherwise you just end up with socialist-flavored versions of the same old shit.

[TBF]

7. ^ This is again incremental centrist nonsense that belongs in a different forum.

Unless we are changing the SOP which the members and hosts claim not to want to do.

I think those in the "incremental" camp need to think long and hard about why they are willing to sell out the working class.

[forjusticethunders]

8. "Selling Out the Working Class"

Because political strategies that have done nothing but hurt the working class in the name of helping them will surely work if we try them again.

Because the only way to attain socialism is one big systemic revolution without regard to the post-revolution, or I guess we'll just make it up as we go along, because that surely worked in 1917.

[TBF]

9. You're going to need to be a lot more specific

with this "political strategies that have done nothing but hurt the working class in the name of helping them will surely work if we try them again".

OK, which strategies are we talking about? Please be specific so I can address them.

And this right here is red-baiting and unwelcome in this group:

Because the only way to attain socialism is one big systemic revolution without regard to the post-revolution, or I guess we'll just make it up as we go along, because that surely worked in 1917.

[forjusticethunders]

10. How is that red baiting?

In any case, what has generally been tried in the 20th century is a violent overthrow of existing capitalist oppressive systems, declaring a new socialist republic, and then trying to implement socialist policy from the top down from the vanguard. This has been a failure every time it's been tried, AND requires the situation to descend to a level of poverty and deprivation that makes overthrowing the existing system almost a matter of life and death, or a major worldwide disruption like the Great War (and even then revolutionary socialism went something like 1 for 10, though it came damn close in Germany). This is not realistic in most developed countries, the very countries that Marx stated need to go socialist first.

So how do you get a socialist revolution in the USA? You're not going to overthrow the USA militarily; that's more or less the same kind of fantasies the birthers/truthers/right-wing survivalists engage in. There just isn't enough deprivation to say, launch a general strike that shuts down the nation's industry. So that means you need to engage in a long march strategy where you build grassroots support among the dispossessed, create intersectional movements that fight for progress on specific issues (if you can't get the marginalized groups on your side, you might as well not even bother), try to translate that power to the ballot box, and win progressive change which creates a different socio-political ecology for further change. This also has the benefit of creating bottom-up, grass roots institutions that can both provide an alternative to capitalist power and step in whenever that critical mass for major change does come.

Is it incremental? Yes. Do you have to make compromises as part of a longer game to get what you want? Yes. But is it more likely to not only establish a true base for socialism, but not hurt the working class in the process (because I notice a lot of "socialists" are really sanguine about hurting the working class through accelerationist bullshit to get to their idea of socialism, never mind that such an approach is more likely to lead to fascism just like it did in Germany in the 30s).

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/04/erik-olin-wright-real-utopias-capitalism-socialism - This post is in a similar vein.

[TBF]

11. You are dismissing revolution when it certainly has changed the landscape -

whether for better or worse (and whom it benefits) is another big topic with various outcomes in various places. Who is to say Cuba will be "better off" with capitalism? It depends upon how you define and measure "better off", and whom exactly is doing "better".

"Long march strategy" - that is what we have been doing for some time now as the income inequality grows and the planet is literally destroyed. We don't have time for your method. As far as begging everyone to come along, that isn't going to need to happen. Conditions warrant when revolution happens, and the best theorists can do is be ready when that crash comes (in fact if I were you I'd keep an eye on July in Cleveland).

You're more than welcome to continue your march with the neo-liberals but I doubt the planet is going to be able to survive your efforts (the outsourcing to lower all the boats worldwide is destroying our atmosphere via pollution, the income inequality you're leaving in it's wake in the US is leading to fascist candidates becoming quite popular, and the war-mongering is killing people worldwide not to mention depleting resources that should be used for infrastructure and keeping people alive - health care, education, etc.)

[forjusticethunders]

12. The problem is that while it may be too late for the "long march"

It is most ASSUREDLY too late to keep trying shit that we KNOW isn't working. How do you get a revolution in the USA, much less the rest of the West which still has more robust social systems? Especially if you can't get the groups that would presumably benefit? I hate to take it back to the primary but Bernie LOST with the oppressed people. That is fact. Bernie lost MASSIVELY with demographic groups that prefer socialism to capitalism. What the fuck does that tell you? It tells me we need to try something different if we want to build a movement for change in a socialist direction.

But keep calling me a neoliberal while not building the kind of organizations that can actually make change. Calling everyone who disagrees with your strategy isn't going to take a single PPM of carbon out of the atmosphere.

All this "revolution NOW" shit probably isn't controlled oppo...but it might as well be. Don't ask me, ask Mark Rudd of the Weather Underground.

“The FBI should have put us on the payroll,” [Rudd] said.

[TBF]

13. Bernie did not "lose" - he has had an election stolen

by party members intent on keeping the neoliberal status quo intact. And even with them flipping as many ballots as they could he still only trails by a couple hundred and has the path to take this to a contested convention (unless you've already flipped the entirety of California as well).

You can tell Brock he can kiss my ***.

[TBF]

14. And about the "demographic groups" that don't understand Bernie -

:large

Don't even go there. We all know what happened with voter sabotage and suppression - and if you push me just a little I will bring it from Twitter and post it all over here. In our SOP we promised to stay out of the minutia of elections, but since you have Starry's seal of approval and are still bringing it up I won't hesitate to bring examples from every single state.

[socialist_n_TN]

15. By the numbers......

1) I would agree that class consciousness is incremental with great leaps at particular periods. I would say that post-recession we've had, historically speaking, a great leap in class consciousness and it won't stop because the neo-liberal economic model won't allow the more naked oppression to stop. From Wisconsin to Occupy, to the Sanders campaign, with the concurrent social unrest over police terror and LGBT rights and the rise of Trump's proto-fascism involving oppressed groups. there has been a progressively more militant response by the working class and the oppressed. But the widespread nature of these responses has shown the bankruptcy of incrementalism as a SOLUTION to these problems. As long as capitalism remains in place, NO GAIN BY THE WORKING CLASS IS SAFE!

2) Revolutionary socialism hasn't worked out so well BECAUSE the opposition to socialist revolution has been orchestrated by the USA for the most part. Which is why the USA is and always has been, a lynchpin in the struggle. Only without American opposition or at least neutrality, will any other country be safe to attempt socialism. In addition, the temporary measures (War communism) that were introduced by Lenin and Trotsky to defend the October revolution and which were never meant to be permanent became the "role model", more or less, for all subsequent socialist states. A temporary bureaucracy created for immediate defense of the revolution was never meant to permanently replace the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat.

3) Any incremental gains were not won "through the institutions", they were won with militant demands OUTSIDE of the institutions which the institutions were forced to acknowledge. And those demands, as I said above, are not and never will be "safe" as long as there's super profit to be made in special exploitation.

I don't disagree with the replacing the institutions of capitalism with alternatives, but it can be done while capitalism is still in place. That was Trotsky's method. He called it creating a "dual power" situation, which is what the soviets were. That will also be a means to gauge the level of class consciousness. But the very success of "dual power" institutions will create a contradiction for bourgeois governments that can only be resolved by revolution. Or the "smashing" of the state. Because the more successful alternative institutions are, the more they will come under attack BY the bourgeoisie.

[forjusticethunders]

16. Responses

1/2: Incrementalism isn't a solution per se, to me, the idea of "incrementalism" (though what I'm really talking about is movement building) is to at least attempt to bypass the very resistance you talk about, while building the needed class consciousness and alternative institutions needed to subvert and eventually overthrow capitalism. Essentially, an evolutionary revolution.

Yes it can seem like "settling" but the material conditions just aren't there for a full scale revolution in the United States or most other developed countries, and trying to force said conditions by say, electing Trump, not only risks fascism being able to crush the movement through the apparatus of the police state, but is unethical, essentially having a situation where the working class, particularly the super-exploited members thereof, have to suffer through "temporary" pain for a chance at a revolution.

Also I personally believe that the revolutionary vanguard type action is predisposed to descend into authoritarianism (not guaranteed) because as Marx said, even socialists still have the birth marks of the old society, which includes hierarchy, concentration of power, and exploitation. Furthermore, in a revolutionary situation there will be a great deal of short term disruption of both production and distribution (whether or not instigated by the reactionaries) which leaves the socialist republic with two choices - either continue political democracy and have itself be potentially be voted out, or crack down to try to defend the revolution and we all know where that leads.

3: It was a mixture of both if you ask me. A less sympathetic "establishment" could have continued stomping on the face of the working class and not given up an iota of power. Yes, enough popular pressure can overcome this but you need different material conditions than what I see existing in the USA for the forseeable future. I think such gains are seen as "give x amount of power to the working class to forestall revolution", but in reality, giving said power actually creates an ecosystem that makes revolutionary change more feasible. For example let's say an UBI was implemented tomorrow. It'd likely be very limited in scope, and probably barely cover costs of living. But now that say, a low-wage worker doesn't risk starvation by striking or trying to join a union, the capitalist class loses a lot of leverage.

I agree, the dual power situation is exactly what I have in mind; the issue is CREATING that dual power situation. Essentially the idea is to work within the existing system while actively trying to subvert it. A castle is very difficult to conquer head on, but if you infiltrate the castle and start removing the bricks, then suddenly it becomes a lot easier. Of course, there's the added complication of not only destroying the old castle but then using the bricks to build a new castle in its place, while destroying the old one.

Also happy May Day!