[lbo-talk] Politics vs the DP

[Bhaskar Sunkara]

This is utter bullshit. There seems to be some obfuscation about what the
Democratic Party is and a tendency to portray them as being more powerful
and more coherent than they really are.  It's only even a party in the
broadest sense.  What old Trots would call "independent class
representation" for workers is as necessary today, as ever.  But let's not
lose sight of the fact that to the degree that the working class is
politically active, it's often as DP activists.  And you could call this
"false consciousness," or label it as collusion with the "main enemy"... but
it makes sense given the conditions on the ground in America and the posture
leftists adopt towards the DP needs to take this into account and also
recognize the diversity within the party.

I'll echo Jason Schulman writing in the letters section of a recent Weekly
Worker (cpgb.org.uk):

[...] note the organisational looseness of the Democrats (and Republicans).
In fact, today they are both quasi-state institutions - no longer political
parties in the European parliamentary sense; they are legally regulated
structures with fixed times and places, where anyone can register. Open to
all, they have no ideological requirements for membership. To become a
Republican or Democrat, you just register as such. In fact, these are not
really parties at all, but coalitions of more or less compatible social
forces, in which various groups contest for influence under a common banner.
Of course, it is still difficult for any individual or group to succeed in
this process without lots of money. But organised groups with clear
programmatic ideas and a long-term commitment can become forces within
either party. The mainstream of the DSA thinks that labour and the left
should do precisely that within the Democrats - to become ‘a party within a
party’. The DSA supports left Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and John
Conyers to that end.

Is this popular frontist? It’s not intended as such. It has nothing to do
with old CPUSA arguments for supporting ‘representatives of the progressive
wing of the bourgeoisie’ or what have you. *The argument is that Democrats
such as Kucinich and Conyers are not representatives of the capitalist
class; that they are traditional social democratic-type workers’ reps,
because the Democratic Party is in fact basically a structureless line on
the ballot which is open for (class) contestation.*
***

I eagerly await the opportunity to break with the Dems electorally.  I think
the work can start immediately towards uniting the anti-capitalist left into
a democratically organized party that allows for free and open debate and
from that basis and through the strength of social movements down the road a
real party of the working class can emerge.  I've made it clear many times
that I think that this could be a catalyst for renewal on the left.  But the
whole reflexive "blame the Democratic boogey-man" doesn't strike me as
thoughtful analysis.

*Men make their own history, but ...*

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:


>
> >  [The DP] has no ideological dog in the fight.
>
> What an extraordinary thing to say. The DP is a highly
> ideological organization. It's intensely Zionist,
> interventionist, anti-communist, militarist, and police-mad,
> among many other things.
>
>