Since our current economics crisis begun, I’ve continually seen “experts”, “economists”, and media anchors talk about how the current dip in the stock market is caused by the “irrationality” of investors who are pulling their money out of companies which those experts consider to be “sound” investments. Oil companies who’ve been raking in huge profits are cited as one example of a sound investment (another topic all together!) from which people are “irrationally” pulling their money.

This is a common theme among elites. While in this case they were referring mostly to investors, which includes those who’s companies or nonprofits have their pension funds invested in the market, the argument (and variants of it) are used for all sorts of  decisions that people make. Low-income people vote for Republicans? Democratic Party leaders say they must be irrational. Social anxiety? You must be irrational. Pulling your money out of “sound” investments? You must be irrational.

I always get bothered when this topic comes up. Rather than being “irrational”, these people are making quite rational decisions in the context of utterly irrational social institutions. Of course “experts” have to blame it on the individual. In times of crisis when people are making rational and panicked decisions, elites need to call their decisions “irrational”, taking advantage of long-seeded narratives about “personal responsibility” and individualism, in order to prevent people from making connections about the irrational systems we live under and starting to value solidarity and cooperation over competition and individualism.

Despite the fact that the bailout package was utterly insufficient to deal with the crisis we face and the Democratic Party’s history should lead to no surprises about where the Party’s real interests lie, the public discussion about the failure of the Bailout Vote to pass is quite over the top.
Huffington Post reports:

“House Republican Leader John Boehner said, “I do believe that we could have gotten there today, had it not been for this partisan speech that Speaker [Pelosi] gave on the floor of the House. I mean, we were — we put everything we had into getting the votes to get there today, but the Speaker had to give a partisan voice that poisoned our conference, caused a number of members who we thought we could get to go south.”"

So what did Nancy Pelosi say exactly?  What was so “out of line” that caused the GOP to vote “no” because their feelings got hurt? Well she commented that:

“Today we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership … We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a new direction to a better future.”

“It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies-policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.”

People do seem to be responding to the absurdity of the GOP’s claim - that GOP politicians got their feelings hurt and as such, risked the entire market collapsing by voting no - but right from the beginning the Democratic Party, lead by the Congressional leaders and Senator Obama, responded to McCain’s call for “bipartisan efforts” in a positive manner. Any party with the slightest hint of liberal politics would called the GOP out on their shit: the administration, corporations, and individuals who caused this mess have no right to claim the higher ground. They created the crisis - they don’t get to solve it - nor attack those who attempt to do so. And yes, partisan attacks in a time of fundamental crisis are very appropriate. Those who cause crises should face the public spotlight when they occur.

These comments are less about the actual bailout package, and much more about how those interested in genuine freedom should point out both the hypocrisy of the GOP’s stance and the unwillingness of the Democrats to stand up for what they call “Main Street”. Until they start foreclosing the war, the dirty energy economy, and poverty, the Democratic Party has no right to talk about “Main Street”.

She also went on, of course, to say that:

“Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.”

Thankfully they actually admit what the free market does. It makes advocating opposition to capitalism and the presentation of democratic alternatives all the easier.

(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!)

(Note: This is part 1 of a multi-post series… Part Two can be read by clicking here!)

For the last few days, I’ve been hearing virtually the same thing from everyone with half a brain or half a conscience: why is the U.S. Government bailing out Wall Street while doing nothing to help ordinary Americans.

I’ve heard this from news anchors, and while walking down the street in New York City, reading in a cafe, sitting on the train, and talking to my family. I’ve event heard, on several occasions, people and news anchors directly questioning the very nature of free market economics and capitalism. More importantly, this is a consistent message coming from ordinary people across the political spectrum. I want to draw two points from this.

Tell Us Something We Don’t Know!

Everyone has thought for ages, continues to thinks, and will keep thinking in the future that our world, our economy, our government, and our culture are all utterly corrupt, undemocratic, and unjust. Someone close to me told me last week, flat out: “Brian, it’s the end of the world.” They were referring to the simultaneous bank failures, multiple hurricanes, Midwest floods, and other symptoms of the ongoing climate and economic crises.

Mind you, almost none of these messages are coming from the “American Left”. And for a very good reason: there is no “American Left”. There is no organized force in the United States capable of responding to crises such as these. But I’ll come back to that point in minute.

As I wrote in my last post, both President Bush and Senator McCain have been talking about how market economics are the “best system ever devised” (Bush) and how the “fundamentals of our economy are strong” (McCain). Senator Obama quickly responded that it showed how McCain’s statement was detached from the reality of what’s going on in our country. An organized left, if one actually existed, would have responded slightly differently I think. McCain isn’t detached - at least not on this issue. Neither is President Bush. They both know exactly what they are doing. They know that when the entire population is questioning if capitalism is even a workable system, you have to parrot back: “there is no alternative, stupid”, and “grow up”, “deal with reality”, or more precisely “capitalism is the best system ever devised” (Bush). An organized left would have seen these statements for what they are: apologies and propaganda used to uphold an utterly flawed and profoundly undemocratic economic system which is currently in deeply in crisis.

Even better, the people in this country needed no convincing that capitalism is a garbage system - they already knew it. It wasn’t the left who convinced young people that this system is undemocratic and unjust. Their daily experiences taught them that. Gone are the days when leftists in American have any justification for their belief that we can win Americans to our cause by explaining to them, day after day, why the system is rotten. They know that already. Gone are the days when leftists - both “old” and “new” - have any justification for their argument that we don’t need an inspiring and hopeful vision of the future in order to compel people to action. Barack Obama has a vision for America’s future. John McCain has a vision for America’s future. A developing left needs a vision for America’s future. People are tired of hearing about the problems. They already know what’s wrong. They want to hear about solutions. They want to hear about alternatives. They want to hear about a life after capitalism.

(Read Part Two!)

“In the long run, Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength. Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic [sic] capitalism is the best system ever devised.” - George W. Bush, September 25, 2008

“The fundamentals of the economy are strong.” - John McCain, September 15, 2008

You’ll hear lots of politicians, CEO’s, and media pundits using similar language in the days ahead. The economy is “strong”. capitalism is the “best system possible.” Or, perhaps more bluntly, they’ll say what they really mean: there is no alternative.

Fundamental crises like these, where the government has to step in to prevent the market system from literally collapsing and sending us into a depression, are proof enough for the average onlooker that market capitalism is a deeply flawed and profoundly undemocratic system.

Right-wing politicians like Bush and McCain, who claim to favor “small government”, have been exposed for who they really are. While social programs have been cut over the last four years, our national debt has skyrocketed to nearly  $11 trillion dollars. Small government? Ha! While bipartisan politicians and Wall Street CEO’s rob taxpayers of money to fund an unpopular regional war in the Middle East and bailout criminal corporate robber barons, millions of Americans can’t afford to travel to work, buy food, or pay their rents and mortgage.

While the climate crisis is spiraling out of control, with the north pole becoming an island - detached from all surrounding continents - for the first time in 50,000 years, the Washington-Wall Street racket is spending $3 trillion dollars - and killing millions of people - on a fossil fuel drilling expedition in Iraq.

McCain and Obama’s answer to the crisis? Slightly different programmatic positions, but McCain articulated their commonality best: “Drill Baby, Drill.” The gas prices issue leads to their common (non-)solution: “energy independence”. What’s the term really mean? Read: having a backup plan should imperialist endeavors in the Middle East fail. While leaders like former Vice President Gore are calling for 100% clean energy by 2019, advocating young people utilize civil disobedience to achieve it, Senator Obama - the Democratic Party candidate for President - advocates “energy independence” by 2020. Climate change is a global crisis and should not be turned into sell-out slogans to pick up votes and gain the presidency. The two presidential candidates should grow a spine and take a real stance on the issue. Unfortunately the American people will have to force them to do so.

So why exactly are Bush and McCain bringing out the “there is no alternative” (TINA) argument when both the economy and climate are in deep crisis? Hmmm. I wonder. What we have are two crises that exist, largely due to the chaotic nature of market economics. Costs of production and consumption on humans and the environment aren’t figured into market transactions. The government is forced to use hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to bailout corporations that have caused the economic spiral towards recession.

So why all the talk about “capitalism being the best system ever devised”? Its simple, because none of these problems would exist in a democratic economy. Go figure.