On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Seth Ackerman wrote:
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> > Worse, the welfare states of Europe and folks in the US enjoy the standard
> > of living we do to even attempt such self-payment only because of massive
> > expropriate of the labor of third world workers producing consumer goods
> > as sub-level wages. The goal of any real socialist or even social
> > democratic moevment has to aim for expropriation of the income (at
> > minimum) of the first world wealthy to pay not only for a welfare state
> > here but for redistribution globally.
> >
> ---
>
> Nathan, you amaze me. Your political vision combines ever more grandiloquent
> dreams of global socialism with fervent loyalty to a series of increasingly
> centrist New Democrats.
> Without global redistribution, you say there is no hope of socialism or even
> social democracy. But the US government will not even allow third world
> countries to voluntarily *withdraw* from the global system. Asking the US to
> *fund* such a withdrawal is hilarious.
First, my statement was contesting Max's idea that European social democracy should be the end goal or the measure of progressive action. Social welfare for US poor and workers is part of our goal but not the endpoint.
Let's see- if "the US" won't do anything, ever, never, let's all go home, get some sleep and stop worrying about it. Of course, the point is that "the US" is not some monolith (even if capital power may have extreme dominance) so what we aim for is to change the balance of forces within the world economic and political systems, including within the US political system.
Part of my argument with Max and Doug is over the possibility of success in achieving some of that change in balance of forces in expropriating part of the income of the wealthy. I would not disagree that it is a modest success, but as an unabashed and unapologetic incrementalist revolutionary, it is understanding and appreciating how to achieve multiple modest successes that will get us social change.
By understanding each step, especially in combination with non-electoral activism and global alliances, we can move that balance of political forces towards, yes, "funding" the global socialist system that many of us are fighting for.
If I am unimpressed by third party advocates, it is because they cannot even demonstrate such modest success. So far, the Greens main achievements have been electing two rightwing GOP Congressmen and a GOP Governor in New Mexico, marginally aiding a moderate GOP Senator's election in Maine, electing a state rep in California who immediately left the party, and electing a handful of city council people in historically leftwing cities.
So yeah, I will take the marginal successes of increasing the effective tax rates on millionaires by 20% as a justification for lesser-evil voting. Add to the marginal gains of better NLRB treatment and a range of other gains in labor, environmental and civil rights results and its worthwhile until we improve the left electoral organizing to get better candidates winning in the primaries and general election.
If electoral work was the sum total of my activism, I might even agree that it would be a rather sad shadow of socialist organizing. But like most folks who support Dems out of pragmatism (you know, like the vast majority of activists), electoral work is a tiny part of what we do to fight for social change.
The rest is equally incremental, though, whether fighting on this or that issue, or organizing this group of 1000 or 200 or even 20 workers in this unit. It's all kind of boring if your only measure is total revolution by a heroic party of uncompromised believers, but both the failures of the "party" in results and it's unlikely practical success given modern structures of economic power - ie. grab the Winter Palace and most economic power will slip away - makes such day-by-day organizing the best bet for radical social change.
Whenever I hear that this or that strategy "won't work" because the capitalists won't allow it, I have to ask, what strategy are you proposing that they won't stop?
-- Nathan Newman