-----Original Message----- From: Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>
Nathan Newman wrote:
> My question for Michael and other anti-Dems is what difference is there
> between the role of the left Dems in the US Congress versus the Communist
> Parties in France and Italy or the Greens in Germany supporting the ruling
> coalition?
-None, given the current confluence of "new democracy". -At the same time, I recognize the "progressive" votes that Nathan listed. -The question comes down to the old strategic consideration: do we accept a -temporary "loss" today in order to strengthen the progessive forces in the -long run.
Wait a second; the French CP and Italian Communists (and Communist Refoundation for much of the last few years) are part of the "new democracy"? I thought they were just engaged in strategic coalition-building, something left parties have done throughout this century. The biggest exception to that strategic coalition approach was the German Communist Party in the late 20s which hoped to undermine its rival Social Democrats by refusing to give them strategic support. Not the most felicitous model for a "temporary loss", you might agree?
Now, without claiming Auschwitz around the corner if progressives refuse such coalition-building - which in the US happens within the Democratic Party rather than ex post elections in other countries, but the result is the same - I don't really see what will be gained from such temporary losses.
Let me be clear. If every lefty walked precincts for my favorite left Dems, that won't lead to socialism in my view. I have a generally non-electoral view of how the conditions for socialism will be shaped. I believe (in what some might argue is an overly nostalgic position) that socialism rides on the organization of workers, mostly in the form of greater union strength.
Now I don't expect the Dems to be able to deliver serious labor law improvements, but they have been able to block some of the most vicious anti-labor bills pushed by the GOP. If all voting Dem accomplishes is gridlock on labor law, then it serves the minimal purposes in my mind. I actually have enough optimism about the possibilities of worker organizing (where I put most of my own political energy) that talk of supporting temporary political "losses" looks dangerously delusional.
While I think labor can make significant gains under present conditions, however harsh they are for workers, if the GOP gains decisive control, they can destroy unions through a host of political measures (some of which were passed and vetoed by Clinton). Those measures include:
** Legalizing company unions (the TEAM Act) ** Banning corporate campaigns and union use of pension funds in support of organizing ** Passing national right to work law ** Gutting NLRB funding; appointing NLRB judges who not only won't defend workers but will judge most union actions to be illegal ** Passing legislation that allows most workers to be classified as independent contractors, thereby making it illegal for them to form unions (see Microsoft-backed temp legislation)
There are a number of other pieces of the assault, but the sum total would devastate the present union organizing underway. Some might dismiss its passage as a "temporary loss" but I fear a much more permanent set-back, just as Taft-Hartley in 1947 marked a major setback and reason for the failure of stronger left politics in this country in the post-war period.
Maybe it's because I have a minimalist view of the role of electoral work in building socialism that I have more tolerance for supporting non-socialists for office. Such voting is strategic in my view and I don't expect elected politicians to be leading either the political or the ideological load for social change. They sit in their offices and cast the best votes we can wrangle out of them. The rest of the game is up to the rest of us organizing at the grassroots.
But maybe Michael, you have higher expectations of elected officials?
--Nathan Newman