Note from Brian: The following is an article by X from New Brunswick. Its a very interesting analysis of the multi-class alliance that elected Obama and the potential for that alliance to aim more progressive aims on a path to revolution. I’d like to see a discussion of the class analysis in this article, so comment if you have ideas. Beyond that, I’ll note that I do not agree that the development of the “new SDS” is a positive development. From my experiences as an organizer and founder of the group, I think it has taken a very backwards turn. Any strides it has made are stuck in the culture, politics, and “strategies” of the 20th (or 19th!) century. But beyond that, this article is superb i think. Here it is:

————————

The Obama movement is a spontaneous upsurge of the most advanced workers in the country. It is an emerging class alliance of the progressive social forces of the new economy.[2] Whereas Clinton and McCain supporters desperately cling to the old economy of the 20th century (each in their own way), the diverse constituencies uniting around the Obama campaign are natural economic, political and cultural allies in the 21st century. The millions of students, Afro-Americans, Latinos[3], grassroots and netroots activists, unions in expanding industries, technicians, artists, engineers, and other professionals that support Obama’s candidacy all share an unyielding commitment to democracy, creativity, productivity, diversity, collaboration and progress.[4] They also share uncanny abilities at self-organization, mobilization and networking (each in their own way). They represent the potential for a revolutionary democratic coalition that could challenge the unfettered rule of capitalism in the US if we, as progressive and revolutionary organizers, recognize the opportunity before us and do all that we must to empower this movement to come into its own, strike independently and realize its aspirations of freedom for all.

Waiting for Lefty

We cannot succeed in this critical task unless we shake off the ideological hangover of the traditional US Left that remains mired in 20th century worldviews rooted in the disappearing old economy. Among the “established” groups contending today for the title of “leadership” on the grassroots activist Left, proposals for activity in this landmark election year range from timidity to wishful thinking to nihilism.

Some recommend that we support Obama unconditionally so as to not jeopardize his chances to defeat the Republicans (and we know how well this worked out in 2004 with the Kerry campaign). Others propose that we give Obama only “conditional” support while criticizing him from the “left” (as if the Obama campaign cared about the support of hopelessly fragmented and isolated activists). Others yet remain on the sidelines as armchair critics of the two-party system (stating an obvious problem and offering no viable solution). Worst of all, the most recklessly self-important propose to “recreate 68” and glorify pointless disruptions with dangerous consequences at the hands of police well trained in “crowd control.” This last and most reprehensible proposal willfully ignores that 1968 saw the assassinations of the most progressive mainstream political leaders (Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy), ushered in the collapse of the revolutionary Left (from Students for a Democratic Society to the Black Panther Party) and gave us the Nixon White House that served as the training ground for the maniacal Neo-Cons currently misruling the country (Cheney anyone?).

The common thread in the traditional US Left narrative is the failure to comprehend – or even to attempt to comprehend– the profound political, economic, cultural and social changes that have taken place in the capitalist system in the past decades. This revolution in the production process transformed the US economy from an industrial “old economy” mostly based on physical labor to an information-based “new economy” mostly based on mental labor. Each of these economies is powered by very different classes of workers and capitalists. For the past several decades, these various class forces all contended over who will control the future. The forces of the “new economy” steadily grew along with relentless technological development while the forces of the “old economy” desperately clung to power in one incarnation or another.[5] And whereas this complex struggle mostly took place between different sections of capitalists financing the political campaigns of Democrats and Republicans, the sudden rise of the Obama movement represents not only the final ascendency of the big capitalists of the new economy in the US but also the first mass mobilization of the workers of the new economy whose newfound means and ability to produce and reproduce our society has emboldened them to stake their own claim to the future (if still so tentative).

Whether they call themselves anarchists, socialists, communists, radicals or situationists; whether they are committed to identity politics or to organizing “industrial workers”, the “poor”, the “oppressed” or the “alienated”, most leftist activists cannot account for –and much less take an active role in – the rising 21st century progressive class alliance because they rely on outdated understandings of what makes people revolutionary. They do not grasp that all of the diverse constituencies coalescing in the Obama movement play key roles in the new economy. They do not grasp that all of these constituencies are natural allies because together they possess the means and the ability to empower the great majority to take control of society, rescuing it from the capitalist system that can never deliver on the promise of democracy. Predictably, traditional leftist activists do not offer any plan to engage the Obama movement in any concrete activity (beyond tailing the Obama campaign and encouraging voter registration or protesting it to no avail), vainly hoping to draw a few stragglers to the musty old leftist political programs of yesteryear.

Revolutionaries actually interested in building a new society based on the principles of democracy, equality and progress need to do more than talk or posture about challenging the absolute rule of capital (or imperialism or the “system”). The Obama movement gives us a first glimpse of the extraordinary potential of the rising 21st century progressive class alliance coming together at breakneck speed before our eyes (and hinting at the potential speed of radical changes to come in the near future). Our primary concern should not be Obama the candidate, and much less the Obama campaign. We must focus on the role we must play in the Obama movement. And in a much broader sense, we must focus on the role we must play in the 21st century progressive class alliance that began before, currently energizes, and will outlast the Obama movement far into the future.

It is incumbent upon those of us committed to revolutionary democracy to:

• understand what 21st century progressive class forces are coalescing in the Obama movement, how they came to be, why they are revolutionary and what they could accomplish should they consolidate into a revolutionary democratic coalition independent of the Obama campaign;
• understand what we as revolutionary organizers must do to facilitate this consolidation and empower the Obama movement to become fully conscious of its own revolutionary potential;
• develop and put forth our own proposals, analyses, plans for action and strategy for revolutionary democracy and engage the Obama movement in concrete activity to build and seize revolutionary democratic political, economic, cultural and social power wherever they are.

Obama’s candidacy has revealed and greatly accelerated the unification process of the 21st progressive class alliance. It is up to us to organize and empower this alliance to become conscious of itself as a revolutionary democratic movement that can lead us into the future.

[Read more →]

Inside the Obama campaign, almost without anyone noticing, an insurgent generation of organizers has built the Progressive movement a brand new and potentially durable people’s organization, in a dozen states, rooted at the neighborhood level.

The “New Organizers” have succeeded in building what many netroots-oriented campaigners have been dreaming about for a decade. Other recent attempts have failed because they were either so “top-down” and/or poorly-managed that they choked volunteer leadership and enthusiasm; or because they were so dogmatically fixated on pure peer-to-peer or “bottom-up” organizing that they rejected basic management, accountability and planning. The architects and builders of the Obama field campaign, on the other hand, have undogmatically mixed timeless traditions and discipline of good organizing with new technologies of decentralization and self-organization.

Win or lose, “The New Organizers” have already transformed thousands of communities—and revolutionized the way organizing itself will be understood and practiced for at least the next generation. Obama must continue to feed and lead the organization they have built—either as president or in opposition. If he doesn’t, then the broader progressive movement needs to figure out how to pick this up, keep it going and spread it to all 50 states. For any of that to happen, the incredible organizing that has taken place this year inside Obama’s campaign—and also here and there in Clinton’s—needs to be thoroughly understood and celebrated. Toward that end, here are glimpses from several days of observations and interviews in Central and Southwest Ohio. This article focuses on the field program’s innovative “neighborhood team” structure and the philosophy of volunteer management underlying it that is best summarized by the field campaign’s ubiquitous motto: “Respect. Empower. Include.” [Read more →]

November 12, 2008

Maybe it’s my fault. I think I write pretty clearly, but perhaps I don’t. In the last few days, ever since I counseled both excitement at the post-election possibilities for progressive activism, and caution at the risk of over-exuberance, it seems as though some on the left with a heavy investment in their self-righteous sense of radicalism have allowed their personal hatred of all things Democrat and all-things-mainstream-politics to get in the way of deciphering words on a page.

So although I made it very clear that Obama’s election by itself would change very little, and that it was up to us to steer Obama’s supporters into progressive activism, to hear some tell it, I am a starry-eyed bourgeois liberal who refuses to see the inherent evil of Barack Obama. Whatever. I haven’t the time or inclination to play a game of who’s the bigger radical with some of these folks: people who have told me that rather than voting, voluntary dumpster-diving is a revolutionary act (or who miss how whites who do it are abusing their privilege, since folks of color who do that shit are prosecuted for trespassing), or who still use words like bourgeois, and yet can’t understand why regular folks can’t figure out what the hell they’re talking about.

Anyway, I never suggested that Obama was likely to usher in much in the way of progressive reforms or changes. I do believe he will be nominally liberal, and far preferable to McCain/Palin. But ultimately, I am of the opinion that he (as with any president) will only move left if forced to do so. That work is ours to do, but instead of reaching out and speaking to Obama supporters in a way that recognizes their exuberance, honors it, and tries to move them into more productive activity than mere electoral campaigning, these folks would prefer to mock them, suggest their stupidity, and call them names, such as “listless hipsters” (my favorite), “cultists,” “Obamaniacs,” “Limousine LIberals,” or “shills” for the system. Good move: insult millions of people who–like it or not–have been inspired by Obama, and expect them to join your movement for real social transformation. Good luck with that. Just because we on the left haven’t been able to inspire much lately is no reason to hate on those who have, just because they aren’t sufficiently down with our view of the world.

Sometimes those who have harshly condemned my position on this matter prove themselves to be rank hypocrites as well. So, for instance, consider writer and activist Paul Street, who has said my criticism of those who see no difference between McCain and Obama is evidence of my being “increasingly unglued.” This, coming from a guy who four years ago penned a piece in which he warned the left about making arguments of equivalence between Bush and Kerry. In other words, in 2004, Paul Street thought the left should recognize the real differences between the two parties, even though he (and I) both know those differences are not large enough, but apparently that recognition is no longer valuable. Street even suggested back then that the reason the left should be careful about equivalizing the two candidates in 2004 was because doing so would royally piss off black folks, who were quite clear that there was a difference. Oh, but acting like there is no difference between McCain and the black guy should play well with them Paul. Thanks for that clarification. Moving on.

In my previous pieces I made the point that just as JFK was center-right in orientation, and yet, young people inspired by him moved much further to the left over the next fifteen years and made a huge difference in this nation, so too could that happen now. No one who has criticized my previous pieces has seen fit to respond to that. Because they can’t. It is historically inarguable and so they must ignore it. Rather, they point out that when Bill Clinton was president the left didn’t sufficiently pressure him to do very much (and even caved on some things). While this is true, they ignore both the possibility that we may have learned something from that sorry capitulation, and that Obama is far more like JFK in his effect on the public than he is like Clinton. Clinton never inspired this much enthusiasm, which is likely why he seemed so bitter on the campaign trail, even on those few occasions when he managed to say nice things about Barack Obama. He knows the difference quite well, apparently, and that’s why he’s angry.

More to the point, I find this line of argument–that the liberals and progressives will just fold up like a cheap tent in the face of Obama because he promises “change”–to be not only condescending but problematic in terms of where it leads us. If that position is followed to its logical conclusion, one would then have to support only the most right-wing, even fascist forces for president, just on the hope that the obvious clarity of their pernicious plans would “wake up” the masses, as opposed to how they will be lulled to sleep by a well-spoken liberal. In other words, this thinking leads to the classically stupid and venal position that things have to get worse before they get better, and that any reformism is bad because it only props up the system. Not only has this position not been vindicated even once in history–not even once–but it is flatly contradicted by it. When things get worse, they just get worse. People don’t become revolutionaries when things are really bad. They are too busy trying to stay alive at that point. Of course, the kinds of people who make up the more-radical-than-thou part of the left tend to be well-educated, and if poor, only so as a lifestyle choice, rather than as a result of systemic oppression. So they won’t be the ones impacted most by the kinds of leaders they seem to think will be best, if only because they will highlight for all to see the horrors of the system. It will be someone else who suffers for the fulfillment of their dialectic. How convenient.

And what’s especially funny about this “Oh now the libs will all go to sleep and movements will be weaker than ever” routine is that those performing it seem to be suggesting that activism is much bolder and more effective when the enemy is clear. But is that so? Have I missed the ass-kicking that the left has given to Bush these past eight years? Exactly what have we accomplished against this very obvious enemy of the Constitution, and economic justice, and a just foreign policy, which couldn’t have been accomplished against, say, Al Gore or John Kerry? Nothing, absolutely nothing. There is virtually nothing on which he has not gotten his way, and none of our epic and redundant (and predictable) antiwar protests have done a thing to change the course of these wars we’re in. That Obama may not be pressured any more effectively than W has been (though that remains to be seen) isn’t the point. The point is, we haven’t built a mass movement in the repressive and reactionary environment that has existed since 2000, so how could it get much worse?

If these barbiturate leftists would take even a momentary glance at history they would notice that the most effective organizing in this country’s past occurred in the ’30s when a relatively liberal administration was in power, and in the early-to-mid-’60s, when the same thing was true. And why? Because of an uptick in hope, which allowed people to believe that pressure might pay off for once. It’s called rising expectations theory: when expectations begin to rise, people become more active, not less so, and even if those expectations are somewhat dashed, this can often lead to positive outcomes, as frustration mounts, the gap between aspiration and ultimate achievement becomes obvious, and folks decide to ratchet up the protest even more than before. This is why the left was stronger in the moderately liberal ’60s than the relatively repressive ’50s, for instance.

What is most fascinating to me is that the leftists who rail on Obama seem to be making two oddly inconsistent arguments: on the one hand, that Obama is a shill because he doesn’t embrace a left agenda, but on the other, that real change comes not from presidents but from the people. The last of these is correct, but to the extent it is, there is no point in making a big deal of Obama’s inadequacies. If it’s not about him in the first place, then all that remains is for us to get busy, and meet liberal Democrats where they are. Or, we can preen as moral superiors because we’ve read Bakunin, and Zerzan, and Chomsky, or because we once called a cop a pig to his face in Seattle or some such thing.

Here’s something for the Obama-bashers on the left to ponder: old-line civil rights activists (who have put their life on the line for justice far more often than the critics have in most cases) believe Obama’s win is meaningful. Many black nationalists and Afrocentric scholars believe it to be meaningful. Radical scholars in the black community think it’s significant. Community organizers in oppressed communities, even though they know that the real work is yet to be done, are overwhelmingly saying it matters, all over the country. Perhaps they’re all suckers. Perhaps they, and the millions of folks of color in particular who are excited about this moment, are just stupid. Perhaps the Greens are just smarter, perhaps the white radical anarchist or other left collective down the road has figured it all out in ways the silly folks of color just can’t manage to accomplish, or perhaps the Revolutionary Communist Party is every bit as brilliant as they believe themselves to be. But I doubt it.

I just wish that I knew what the barbiturate left’s strategy was for building the movement. Hell, at this point, I’d be glad just to know what the hell they even think the movement is fighting for. It doesn’t appear to me that even this little detail has been figured out yet. And we wonder why the right has been getting the better of us for years?

Some things just aren’t that difficult to understand.

A few articles of interest…

Van Jones, “Why They Win & Why We Lose” (Summer 1999)
The title is self-explanatory. The Right doesn’t keep winning because they have more guns and media than we do, though that’s part of it. They largely keep winning because the Left doesn’t have a winning strategy or attitude. Van touches on just some basic ways of thinking that plagues the Left and which we must overcome in order to win.

Zack Exley, “The New Organizers, Part 1: What’s Really Behind Obama’s Ground Game” (Oct. 8, 2008)
Obama’s campaign is a fricken machine! And the Left should be learning from it. If we are interested in building a new popular organizations, some of which include an electoral arm, the Obama campaign is a model we can learn from for being innovative and reaching out to new audiences.

George Lakoff, “Don’t Think of a Maverick! Could the Obama Campaign Be Improved?” (Sept. 11, 2008)
We need to be message warriors! Learn from George Lakoff as he points out where Obama, as a case study, is succeeding in winning hearts and minds - and also where he is failing (and why).

Matt Stoller, “Obama’s Consolidation of the Party” (May 7, 2008)
Unless something major happens that propels McCain to a comeback victory, Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. What does that mean for the Left? Matt Stoller outlines how Obama has consolidated power within the Democratic Party, effectively creating a new tendency with him in charge. He’ll have the power to make policy, a fundraising base that will force Democratic candidates for House and Senate to come to him if they want to win, and all branches of Government behind him. Where will this help progressive forces in the U.S.? Where will it set us back?

When much of the Left trains its ideological sights on the campaign of Barack Obama, it is found wanting:

1. He is not a socialist (or an anarchist).

2. He is not an anti-imperialist.

3. He does not have a plan for immediate withdrawal of US troops and advisors from Iraq.

4. He has said nothing in his campaign in critique of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.

5. He is too close to University of Chicago free-market economists.

6. His does not call for a single-payer health insurance plan.

7. His message implies that our biggest political problem is largely one of political communication; he claims that he can unite Democrats and Republicans and transcend political partisanship; he seems to be avoiding and denying the reality of strong differences in American politics

8. He tried for too long to avoid issues of racial justice so he will not be perceived as a “Black” candidate; and when forced to discuss race he marginalized Jeremiah Wright’s legitimate concerns.

9. He has had little criticism of the size of the military budget.

There is truth in these critiques and Obama, like any other leader, should not be exempt from criticism and pressure from the left. All leaders need to be called to account. (I will leave it to others to discern the limitations of American election campaigns and what progressive candidates are limited in saying to avoid political marginalization and retain some chance of electability.)

But if we leave matters here, I believe will be missing the moment. Why then should the Left be open to and supportive of the Obama Presidential candidacy?

First and foremost, Obama has tapped into and publicly articulated that something is deeply wrong with the current state of American politics and that something big has to change. And he is not doing this, as is typical in current American politics, from the mad-dog right. This is the root cause of Obama-mania. He poses an alternative to right wing demagoguery and Clintonian Democratic Leadership Council “Republicans with a human face” politics. He has not only confounded the pundits, but he has opened up room for real discussion of important political issues, such as, in his words, “the mind set” that produced the Iraq war. In his “Toward a More Perfect Union” speech on race relations, whatever its shortcomings, he elevated the discussion of race in American politics to a new level. He allows for and promotes real talk about significant issues, sorely lacking in mainstream political discourse.

Secondly he has energized young people. I have a friend who has been a leading antiwar activist for many years. He told me that he has had more meaningful talks about the war in Iraq in a few weeks of working on the Obama campaign than he had in the years since the Iraq war began. The awakening of the young to political activity is a momentous accomplishment that the Left has reason to envy. Obama doesn’t chastise the young for their apathy and cynicism; he inspires them to participate.

Thirdly, Obama has inspired, not just a campaign, but a significant mass movement that can outlast the campaign season. In his Feb. 19 speech in Houston he called for continuing grass roots activity: “And if we win that election in November, then we are going to need your help and your time, your energy, your enthusiasm, your mobilization, your organization, and your voices to help us change America over the next four years.” When was the last time a candidate called for extra-parliamentary activity that wasn’t anti-abortion or homophobic? The Left in America can profit from an unorthodox Democratic Administration. There will be more openings, less marginalization of the Left, a wider debate, and an atmosphere where ‘politics as usual’ will be suspect. None of this is likely under a continuation of the Clinton dynasty which favors “triangulation” by which it attempts to co-opt Republican issues and disdains social movements in favor of ‘focus groups’.

I must admit, that as a tired old leftist that I am moved by a politics “advocating the audacity of hope” to overcome the cynicism that passes for wisdom in American political commentary. Certainly there is a danger of empty, hollow words, but an energetic Left could take advantage of an opportunity to push for its understanding of necessary change on a wide range of issues: single-payer health insurance, equitable education, affordable housing, humane immigration policy, enforcement and expansion of labor rights, environmental justice, and anti-racist and anti-imperial policy.

If we, as a Left, are content to smugly and dismissively critique the Obama phenomenon, we trade self-fulfilling sectarianism for the chance at political impact. A victory for Obama will not only be a boon for the African-American community and for people of color, it will offer a unique opportunity for the development of an organized and aggressive Left movement that retains its independence at the same time that it is willing to risk everyday involvement in the strange world of American politics. If we just critique, we will miss a moment that may not come again for a while. If our politics are meaningful, effective, and get to the root of problems, we should put them to the test in political work that connects to large numbers of people struggling to find direction in an increasingly dangerous world. Something wonderful is happening. We must be alive to it. I hope we can figure out how to relate to it effectively before we consign ourselves to continued marginalization.