The road to socialism can’t be ridden on the wrong horse.

From CPUSA New Hampshire's Facebook page:  https://www.facebook.com/notes/cpusa-new-hampshire/the-road-to-socialism-cant-be-ridden-on-the-wrong-horse/501714323190647

“I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs. 

Here we are in the midst of another national election cycle. Here we are once again jostling for place and relevancy among the various single issue campaigns and fringe groups, trying to get our voice heard in the chaos and doing what we can to make money and members aka: surviving. And here we are, pushing the same failed position of the “united front” against the fringe right, and oddly enough supporting a party and candidate which, by any standard, qualifies as “ultra right” in and of itself.

 Make no mistake, despite wishful thinking to the contrary in America we basically have a one party system- the capitalist party- having two wings. The liberal wing is called the Democratic Party and the conservative wing is called the Republican Party. Neither party is capable of change on a systematic level but only of granting miniscule, expedient, and convenient concessions easily taken back once no longer convenient. It’s not a recent development, the American political system was designed to be largely reactionary and ineffective, passing the least amount of concessions it can bear and only at the behest of their capitalist masters like good little puppets. But what can giveth can be taketh away just as easily.  This is why discussing the elimination of social security is on the table these days, because Wall Street needs new blood and they sense a tasty new morsel with all that potential investment money to squander and profit from. It’s why they’ve even been discussing the elimination of Medicare and Medicaid. It’s why they’ve already eliminated so many social programs.  It’s because they are only supported when convenient. They never would have dared to consider these extreme ideas in the past, but things have escalated due to the loss of two factors, the conditions which led to their creations.

 These programs were created and supported on two conditions- our competition with a functioning socialist alternative and massive grassroots support for their creation and continuation.  Neither of these exists anymore, and in the case of grassroots support it is unlikely it would even affect the election of either party without an electoral alternative to threaten them with, and when they both agree on something we are stuck with it. They have the chance to eliminate the programs and we have no way to stop them. We have a government that can now act with complete impunity. But how did it get this way?

 Over the last 30 years the entire political compass has shifted, and the Democrats are headed on one direction, my friends, and it isn’t leftward. Starting in the mid 70’s the Democrats have been moving rightward, being pulled in that direction by fanatics on the right who kept trying to move the entire map right-ward, which is why the political “center” is still objectively right-wing. The move to the right in the national sphere started with Clinton, who would have been considered a Republican 30 years prior, and that it is both an accident of history, and a booming economy that helps people forget that Clinton presided over the wholesale destruction of nearly the entire social welfare system in America. He’s also responsible for the massive deregulation of the banking system that has brought us the last two recessions and which, in time, may signal the beginning of the end of Democracy here in America. Clinton not only deregulated like a champ, but there was also his little adventure in Bosnia, where we intervened in a religious war between Muslims and Catholics that was killing people on both sides. Not something leftist would do. And let’s not forget the literally millions of Iraqi children whose blood are staining his hands.

 But that was almost 20 years ago, so where does the present Democratic Party stand now? They’ve illegally assassinated American citizens; they’re contributed to massive military adventures and humanitarian crisis illegally and unconstitutionally. They’ve invaded sovereign countries illegally. How does that make them any different than the Republicans? We’re also still fighting two wars that are still technically illegal by the constitution, still torturing people, Gitmo is still open, and whistleblowers are being prosecuted at a record pace. And what about ACTA, a secret treaty that the Obama administration refuses to divulge any parts of, illegally, despite multiple FOIA requests they refuse to tell us about it. And this is Obama, folks, not the republican boogeyman we had 10 years ago.

The fact of the matter is, things are worse now than under either Bush or Clinton. We’ve got massive political suppression of votes with voter ID and with the Department of Homeland Security orchestrating the local police responses to the occupy movement. We’ve got massive invasion of privacy issues, we’ve got illegal secret treaties that will destroy the internet as we know it. We’ve got massive unemployment and their only idea is to make construction jobs or give money to banks. We’ve got record deficits caused largely by Bush era tax cuts that the democrats can’t even summon the courage to fight with any energy. We’ve got the largest instance of political graft ever with the Affordable Healthcare act, in which the government will now force every American to buy private, for profit healthcare or be taxed.

Despite these facts, there are still some who argue that the Democrats pose an alternative, that they are capable of real progression, that their revolution by baby steps can eventually (in a couple of lifetimes of wishful thinking I suppose), take us to the end goal of socialism in America; and that the Democrats are somehow not to be included in the ranks of the “ultra right”.

Here’s a brief glimpse into some of their so-called accomplishments according to the CPUSA so-called “Political Action Commission”:

• Affordable Health Care Act extends coverage to 35 million uninsured people, outlaws denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and extends until age 26 the coverage of children under their parents’ plans.

Better to be called “Insurance company subsidy/  life support bill”,  mandates that everybody help keep our broken, for-profit system going by making sure we all stay enslaved to it for life, and punishes us for not having insurance by raising our taxes. The problem isn’t that we don’t have insurance, insurance agents don’t give our one pill. The problem is access to healthcare, and the only acceptable response by the party should be an unequivocal and resolute demand for single payer. It is an utter disgrace that the party continues to support the bill, even upon the flimsiest of arguments. Golden chains are still chains, and for-profit corporations are still the enemy, or are we no longer communists?  

• Stabilized the economy with $789 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that saved or created 3 million jobs. Invested billions in clean energy jobs, saved the auto industry.

Stabilized? Hardly. We’re still in the hole, unemployment is still over 10%, we’re still bleeding jobs, and zero necessary banking regulations are in place for when the next inevitable and identical crash. Keynesian solutions to market problems need to be done with cash on hand, not debt. What will happen is that our national debt will become larger than our budget, and we’ll eventually have to either raise taxes (impossible these days) or start cutting vital services. This bill is likely going to be the death knell to all the Great Society programs, and possibly even the New Deal ones. 

• Appointed two women to the U.S. Supreme Court, including the first Latina woman, who supports the rights of working people.

Race has nothing to do with political allegiance. What he did is appoint another ant-abortion catholic who has a history of ruling against a woman’s right to choose, and an inexperienced law professor who opposes same sex marriage. They seem pretty status quo to me.

• Ended the war in Iraq and moved toward ending the war in Afghanistan.

Really? When did that happen? Quick, somebody tell the tens of thousands of contractors and private security operatives that still operate in Iraq fighting now in proxy and without the constraints of international law.  Also, hate to break it to you, but to-date the war in Afghanistan is still booming, with over 80,000 troops still operating in country. Obama only removed a token number of troops to make some of his democratic supporters, who obviously don’t pay attention, happy. 

 Perpetual war? Illegal invasions? Invasions of privacy? Secret treaties? Funneling taxpayer money away from social programs to fund tax breaks to billionaires and bail out obsolete companies? Corruption, inefficiency, theft, murder, torture, kidnapping, oppression, and brutality- and all under the leadership of the promised candidate promising hope, transparency, and a new beginning- is this what we want more of?

My friends this isn’t the road to socialism, it’s the road to fascism, and the democrats are pushing the horses faster than the republicans ever were.

Here’s my solution.

We need to break the two-party monopoly. However, in many states it’s easier to just run as an independent than as a declared third party. So run as a socialist independent.  Do whatever it takes. We need to get people used to real socialists in local elections, and running the governments competently and effectively. Make the issue about the economy and be reasonable. Sound like a moderate (because even a center left is closer to the middle than a far right). In debates be the adult in the room. Once socialists are in office they can run for re-election under a declared socialist party of some type. This will put us on the map.

In other states we may need to challenge laws that keep third parties off the ballots. An alliance with other third parties can help us do this; make it about breaking the hegemony and expanding democracy. Organize third party debates. Don’t run from the tea party, they’re in the same boat with the Republicans as you are with the Democrats- sick of being used for votes and then ignored once elected.

Remember in 1968, when the people wanted to end the Vietnam War? The argument was whether a democrat, being more or less liberal, would end the war. In the end it was a Republican, Nixon, who finally ended it. And it wasn’t the ballot box that persuaded him to do so- it was the people on the streets. And they weren’t getting permits to march or put up with police oppression back then like we do now.

The point is to get to socialism- that is our end goal. This will never happen utilizing the slavish strategy whereby we beg for concessions bit by bit, and hope our overlords are in a giving mood. It will only ever be accomplished if we stand up on our two feet, and we lead by example. We must be the change we want to see.

 Socialism will never arrive via the Democratic Party, and it is foolish to try. We tried to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by voting, and that didn’t even work. The DNC money poured into anti-war organizations between 2003 and 2008 and our ranks were swelled and our coffers were full. As a result the leadership of these organizations was filled with people who bought the idea that, if only we had the right party in charge the wars could be over and everything would be ok. So what happened? Obama won in 2008, the money dried up, and we’re still at war. Nothing has changed for the better, and in some ways its gotten much worse.

 Their dirty little secret is this: they need our votes to validate themselves, but your vote does not obligate them to actually do what you voted them to do. And once you do what they need you for, they drop you. Which is why we are not only ignored now, but the leadership of these organizations are still very weary to retain people critical of the Democrats. Their job isn’t to lead these organizations, it’s to keep them in line with mainstream politics, and to keep people who may be interested in an alternative out of mainstream politics, or too frustrated to stay in activism. Their job is to prevent change, not create it.  Every time the leadership of an organization puts party before principle the whole organization suffers.

On a personal note, it didn’t occur to me how bad the problem was until 2007.  I gave an anti-war speech in NH, and the video ended up on YouTube. What I discovered, however, was that the main punch of my speech was removed. My final statement was that if the democrats won’t end the war, we’d find a party that did. Removed from my speech, it sounds like I was supporting the election of a democrat out of principle, or that I was anti-war because I was a democrat. Later, I discovered that following Obama’s election the organization I belonged to saw their national budget shrink to almost nothing.

  It’s the little things that does much to discredit an organization to its membership and makes it a slave to electoral politics rather than principal. And a party that doesn’t stand for anything really isn’t a party anymore.

Tired Old So-Called Leftists Give Same Old Excuses For Supporting Obama in 2012

Written by Bruce A. Dixon

For more than four years now, we at Black Agenda Report have chronicled the self-silencing and growing irrelevance of black America and what calls itself "the left" in the age of Obama. Black America has arrayed itself as a veritable wall around the First Black President. But it's not a wall that protects him from racists or Wall Street predators or Pentagon warmongers. The truth has always been that when we stifle our own tongues and circle the wagons trying to silence critics of the White House we only protect the president and his party from accountability to their supposed base: us. Some African Americans and self-identified leftists relish their irrelevance so much they feel called to preach it. Early this week Carl Davidson and Bill Fletcher published a 5,900 word screed at Alternet.Org with the clumsy and contradictory title The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record ... Which Is Why We Are Voting For Him. 5,900 words is pretty long. Out of respect for our readers' precious time we here summarize its tired, recycled and profoundly un-original arguments in the order they were made, as 12 one-sentence bullet points. Some are repeated in whole or in part, because that's what Davidson and Fletcher did, for who knows what reason. Here they are: 1. The electoral system is pretty much broken. Give the authors credit for this brilliant observation. From standards of who can vote varying from state to state and county to county, with the US Senate giving disproportionate representation to states with lower population, with the Supreme Court affirming that corporations are people who get to vote with their money, and electronic voting which makes it audits impossible, it's hard to argue that US elections aren't a rigged game. 2. Historically, progressives either tail the Democrats, become anarchists, or use elections to expose the bad guys by attacking Dems as well as Repubs, all 3 of which they say "miss the point. " Tailing the Democrats is tailing the Democrats, period. Your votes and those you persuade and hustle count just the same, whether they are cast while holding your nose in a spirit of "critical support" or as a craven, tongue-wagging Al Sharpton-style bootlicker. And if the electoral processes are profoundly broken, what's wrong with using the election to expose the difference between what people want and deserve and what's actually being offered? Why is it better to let a Democrat cut Medicare and social security and privatize public education just because the Democrat isn't a white racist? 3.  Elections are about power, and the left not only has none, but possesses not even a plan to get any. The power of elections is symbolic — they symbolize the will of the people. Elections, even manifestly crooked ones, give a veneer of legitimacy to the "winners." And Fletcher & Davidson must be leftists themselves, because they don't have power or a plan to get any either. 4.  The Republican right is racist, irrational and often militantly ignorant. Wow. These guys don't miss much, do they? 5.  The 2008 Obama campaign was "movement-like" and some kind of "mass revolt", while Obama was always "a corporate liberal." Many like Carl and Bill who supported him were "measured skeptics." Back in 2008, Fletcher's term for "measured skeptic" was "critical support." Being a "measured skeptic" is sort of like being only slightly pregnant. Unless you believe the slogan on their poster, the Obama campaign was never a "movement." It was an marketing campaign, and won Advertising Age's 2008 award for the best brand of the year. Obama IS a "corporate liberal" but in the context of his campaign being a marketing effort masquerading as a movement, it's more precise to call him that — a brand, deliberately manufactured as objects to which folks can attach imaginary and desirable qualities like compassion, opposition to wars, and so on. 6.  Fletcher & Davidson credit Obama with taking the troops out of Iraq. This is an outright lie, as more than a hundred thousand US–financed mercenaries remain in Iraq indefinitely, and the Obama White House fought till the last minute to get its Iraqi client state to set aside the Status of Forces agreement negotiated under the Bush administration which required all official US forces to leave the country. 7.  The Republican right is attacking Obama cause they're irrational, misogynist and racist and because he's black. Same as point number 4. Keen and savvy observers, Davidson and Fletcher are, to have noticed this. 8.  Fletcher and Davis say "this is not a referendum on the 'America of Empire'", instead it's one that pits "'the America of Popular Democracy'... the changing demographics of the US... against the forces of... far right irrationalism..." so Obama's actual record is beside the point. This is almost too weak and shabby to poke fun at. If the discussion is about empire, Fletcher and Davidson can't win. The First Black President invaded and overthrew an African country, Libya, is launching daily drone strikes into the horn of Africa, possibly Mali, and certainly Pakistan and Yemen, and has carried out military adventures Bush and Cheney could only dream of doing without massive upheaval at home. The notion that Obama, the president who coordinated military-style assaults against the occupy movement nationwide last year is on the side of "popular democracy" is also laughable. Obama supporters desperately need his actual record in office excluded from any discussion, or they know they cannot win. 9.  Davidson & Fletcher say that progressive forces are too weak "to supersede or bypass the electoral arena altogether," don't have candidates that can "outshine" the two corporate parties, so voting for the lesser evil is a practical necessity. Such original insights. Who knows what it means to "supersede... the electoral arena," or what it means for a lefty candidate to "outshine" those of the two parties? If the "shine" is a function of corporate media attention, that's a done deal. Corporate media are key players in choosing the establishment candidates and building the narratives that say what the one-percenters want said and keep what they don't want said off the table. 10.  The Republican right is trying to turn back the "demographic and political clock," which electing Obama presumably advances. Davidson & Fletcher makes this "demographic" argument twice, so they must think it's really important. We're supposed to picture Repubs as foes of even arithmetic and the forward flow of time, which maybe they are. Can't have that, can we? 11.  They say that this really important election is about defending ourselves from the Republican right. Ever notice how every darn election is the most important one yet? Or how every election is about defending us from the Republican right. None of them are about defending ourselves from the equally if not more dangerous Democratic right. More Democrats than Republicans in Congress voted for the Bush bailout of September 29. When it lost, Bush called in Barack off the campaign trail. Obama worked the phones and whipped Democratic votes into line so that the Black Caucus for instance, which voted 34 to 8 against the Wall Street bailout on September 29 endorsed it 32 to 10 on October 3. That Bush bailout was only for $3 trillion. Once in office, Barack, according to the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News, handed out $15 or 16 trillion more. 12. Fletcher and Davidson claim progressives will have more room to operate under Obama, so again, complaining about what the Obama administration has or hasn't done is "of little help at this point." Again, they cannot win discussions about Obama's actual four year record, so Obama supporters have to either lie about that record or rule such discussions off the table. As for the notion that progressives have more "room to maneuver and organize" under a Democrat than under Republicans, the last four years should disabuse us of that. Carl's and Bill's nonsense about supporting "the America of Popular Democracy" by organizing independently on the ground while supporting Obama and presumably Congressional Dems as well didn't pass the smell test four years ago and stinks even worse today. To cite just one glaring example, in just about every state in the union there are pro-privatization, anti-teacher, anti-public education referendums, often binding or tied to state constitutional amendments on the November 2012 ballot that will enable the proliferation of charter schools despite the wishes of local communities. These are not abstract questions — they have immediate and far-reaching local and national implications for public education, for the cause of privatization, for the stabilization of communities and much else. The Obama administration, and usually Republicans as well as corporate Democrats on the ground are aggressive supporters of this stuff. Bill and Carl would have us organize to defend public education, at the same time that we get out the vote for a president and Democrats down the ticket to state legislators, county boards and city halls leading the attacks against teachers and public schools. You could make similar arguments that support for Obama actively directly undermines, subverts and contradicts local organizing against nuclear power, which Obama is a big fan of, or reining in the telecoms, or opposing wars in Asia and Africa, or standing up for the rights of prisoners or Palestinians or the immigrants who Obama has deported in record-breaking numbers, or the work to keep homeowners in their homes. How do Bill and Carl expect people on the ground to further any of this work while they make excuses for Obama who directly opposes them on all these fronts and more? In the end, Fletcher and Davidson are just saying the Republicans are racists and white supremacists, so we're obligated to circle the wagons around Obama, and this simply trumps everything else. Some of us don't really buy this. Economist Michael Hudson a couple years ago opined that the duty of corporate politicians is to deliver their voting constituencies to their campaign contributors, and this was why Republicans and Democrats sounded different when campaigning but governed in substantially the same way. The only good thing about Fletcher and Davidson's piece is that they didn't call names, like esteemed elder Amiri Baraka did when he said blacks who didn't support Obama four years ago were "rascals", or like cranky old Ishmael Reed when Jared Ball waved a microphone near him a little while back. So apart from calling them old and tired, which some of us here at Black Agenda Report confess to as well, we won't play the dozens here. But their excuses for supporting Obama are shallow, specious and profoundly un-original, the essence of lesser-evilism and tailing behind Democrats. They ought to, and might well be, ashamed to have to make them. August 15, 2012