Winning the War (Part 2): An Offensive Left in America

(Note: This is part 2 of a multi-post series… Part Three can be read by clicking here!)

An Offensive Left in America

I was going to word this slightly differently, something along the lines of “what would it take to win”, but after reading a terrific post by my friend Matt, I’ll ask instead “what would it take for the (future) Left to go on the offensive?” That is, what would it take for a growing American Left to actually be relevant when crises happen in the future? What would it take for the American Left to seize the moment when the climate crisis worsens, or recession deepens? Returning to the original phrasing: what would it take to go on the offensive?

Thinking About Winning Through a Different View of Power

Leftists need to start conceptualizing power differently.

Progressives in the United States often have a strangely authoritarian view of power. If I’d have to argue an origin of the analysis of power, I’d probably have to point to the obvious one: growing up in an authoritarian system. Most leftists see “winning” as an inherently top down endeavor. This view probably comes from not transcending what we’ve been taught by the dominant ideology. They see revolution as either “seizing” or “smashing” what they see as “the State”. Often in conceptualizing the state, they do not include the institutions of society on which it is based and dependent.

A common definition of the State (i.e. the government) used by progressives is “a force that is alienated from and above the people”. Coming from a different perspective, the Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci, and well as American progressive Gene Sharp, both explained how governments are dependent on the consent and cooperation of the “governed”. More accurately power is seen as not a division between “the State” and “the People”, but rather those who control the state bureaucracy and those who just passively participate in its foundational institutions. These institutions - schools, churches, workplaces, our communities and local governments - all form the spine of the state. Without the active cooperation of the majority of these institutions, the government would cease to exist. The greatest myth of State power is that it is “alienated and above the people”. Without the participation of soldiers and police for example - two segments of the people - a State can’t exist. Another one may rise in its place, but that particular form of government disappears.

Winning means weakening and taking away the State’s power, transforming its power, and revolutionizing the type of power the institution wields. You can’t chop off the top of the power pyramid and expect to win. Nor can you expect the pyramid to just “fall apart”. To win, you’ve got to gain control of the pyramid. Sometimes that means seizing the top of it. Sometimes that means getting the majority of the pyramid’s base to agree with you. Usually it means gaining control of the balance of power - that is, gaining control of enough of the pyramid, enough crucial locations within it as to be able to exercise control over the entire system. In a practical sense, this means putting a lot of work into breaking down the dominant ideology which keep people cooperating with the government instead of building institutions of self-rule.

Victory Means Winning the War
Following that, winning isn’t primarily about the day-to-day battles. Rosa Luxembourg, the courageous German revolutionary, once said: “you lose, you lose, you lose… you win.” By this she meant that on the path towards victory there will be many setbacks. There will be many places where the going gets tough, where it seems like victory is impossible, where it seems like the game is rigged (because, in fact, it is). But winning isn’t about winning all the battles. While innovating and honing our strategy will lead to more tactical victories, we will always face setbacks. Winning is about winning a series of reforms and about increasing the strength of the movement in such a way which ultimately leads to our eventual seizure of power throughout society - seizure of power, institutionally and ideologically, in religious institutions, communities, families, workplaces, and government. Winning is primarily about winning the war.

To win we will need very large numbers of people - millions of people - who actively are fighting for the new world, who share a common vision, who have a common analysis of  the task ahead, and who are organized into fighting political organizations capable of consolidating gains, and pushing further after every reform campaign that is one.

An Offensive Left

In the United States, there is no left-wing force that is capable of defending past gains much less going on the offensive to win increasingly more radical, bold, yet winnable demands on a path towards social revolution and seizure of power. There are leftists in the U.S., but no Left. But there is no commonality of action, vision, and strategy among them. And a population, however big, that does not have unity of vision and action, is no force at all.

Crises are a combination of both threats and opportunities, the point at which things can begin to change in various directions. In our situation, with our society being plagued by deep ecological, cultural, and economic crises, we are faced with great threats and great opportunities. The ecological crisis in particular is a race for the survival of all life on Earth. You can’t find a bigger threat than that.

Yet despite these threats and opportunities, there is no Left to take the offensive during this crisis. There is no organized Left that has the ability to organize for and maximize reform gains and recruit new people who are questioning the nature of the system itself. There is no movement which is making the connections between ecology and economy, at deep, fundamental levels, counterpoising 1. capitalist chaos with the justice, stability and peace of a democratically planned economic system; 2. white supremacy with racial justice and imperialism with internationalism; 3. patriarchy with feminist kinship relations; and 4. the state with participatory democracy.

This relates to the authoritarian view of power that many leftists hold: They see the primary obstacles to social change as the military-police forces, the ruling class’s control of wealth, and the monopoly of elites on the media. As such, they don’t orient themselves towards the primary obstacle of what it really takes to win and what that precisely entails, namely the organizing of millions of people and the training of tens of thousands of revolutionary leaders and organizers.

Going on the offensive would mean that revolutionary organizations would be built to fulfill that task: to build movement organizations in their own right and push them forward in the most effective direction, to host study groups and education efforts, and to provide support and community to progressive and revolutionary forces. Instead of bickering about precise “lines” about revolutions which occurred a century ago, such a left would concern itself with unity of vision, strategy, and program. It would be the principled voice of reason and long-term goals within coalitions and movement organizations. It would win thousands to its cause not through the constant need to argue, but by reasoned debate where appropriate rooted, based on real contradictions that progressives run into, and by being the most dynamic, strategic and visionary force in the movement.

Its high time revolutionary democratic forces took their task of building for revolutionary seriously and oriented their actions towards achieving victory. Only then can we even begin to think about going on the offensive in the U.S.

(Read Part Three!)