Re "democratic equality, including the democratization of the U.S. Constitutional political structure, should be the primary strategic goal of the left, not socialism": this is a false dichotomy. Socialism does not oppose democracy; rather, it is democracy raised to a higher level.
The reason there is a division between the minimum and maximum parts of the political programs of classical Marxism is that they believed the establishment of political democracy was a prerequisite for socialism. They thought political democracy would lead to economic democracy. There are two issues involved with this for us, the historical and the political. There is no question that the establishment of a democratic republic is the primary political task in the classical Marxist programs. The political question for us is whether this relationship still holds in the US. I think it does. That's why I put the demand for democracy first. Full democracy requires the socialization of the economy, but that can't be done without achieving political democracy first.
Sorry, but this is all too redolent of the Popular Front in which socialism is put off to the distant future while Stalinists ally with "progressive" liberals in the here and now. In fact, socialists fight for democracy and socialism simultaneously since one fulfills the other. How the struggle unfolds and in what order is impossible to foresee.
My attitude toward this problem is to suppose we have to choose a single slogan to mobilize behind in this particular political situation. The leading reformist slogan now is "Defend Our Democracy." Several Marxist Unity Group members have put forward "Win the Battle for Democracy" or "We Need a Democratic Constitution" resolutions in their chapters. Other socialist caucuses stick to a straight "We Need Socialism" slogan. Lastly, it's possible to merge democracy and socialism into a "We Need Democracy and Socialism" slogan. The first reformist slogan is popular front politics with the Democratic Party. I don't think the second two slogans are for a popular front with Democrats because the Democratic Party opposes a democratic constitution. I also think the second slogans are more incisive, focused, and have more potential to mobilize a movement than either the third or fourth. Picking a slogan for the present is a different problem than speculating how future events will unfold. The only way to prepare for future uncertainty is to consolidate around a coherent ideology now.
You're obviously unfamiliar with the concept of a transitional program, not surprisingly so given your Maoist-Stalinist background. What we need is a slogan that addresses the current situation, but which does so in a way that leads us forward to the establishment of a revolutionary workers' democracy and to the consolidation of the working class as the only force capable of leading us out of the impasse. I'll try to explore what such a slogan would be in a blog essay in the next few days.
Just as a biographical corrective, neither Stalin nor Mao had any influence on the formation of my democratic politics. It was SDS's values of participatory democracy combined with the demand for a democratic republic in the Program of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party that crystallized my political perspective. Obviously, I am familiar with the concept of a transitional program and reject it in favor of democratic republicanism. The democratic republic is the transition required to advance to the democratization of the economy.
But what does democratization of the economy mean? Shareholder democracy? German-style corporate-labor management? Or democratic centralism? A slogan should point us in a certain direction by summing up what we need to get there. It's a roadmap leading us from the present to the future. "Democracy" by itself is too vague.
Re "democratic equality, including the democratization of the U.S. Constitutional political structure, should be the primary strategic goal of the left, not socialism": this is a false dichotomy. Socialism does not oppose democracy; rather, it is democracy raised to a higher level.
The reason there is a division between the minimum and maximum parts of the political programs of classical Marxism is that they believed the establishment of political democracy was a prerequisite for socialism. They thought political democracy would lead to economic democracy. There are two issues involved with this for us, the historical and the political. There is no question that the establishment of a democratic republic is the primary political task in the classical Marxist programs. The political question for us is whether this relationship still holds in the US. I think it does. That's why I put the demand for democracy first. Full democracy requires the socialization of the economy, but that can't be done without achieving political democracy first.
Sorry, but this is all too redolent of the Popular Front in which socialism is put off to the distant future while Stalinists ally with "progressive" liberals in the here and now. In fact, socialists fight for democracy and socialism simultaneously since one fulfills the other. How the struggle unfolds and in what order is impossible to foresee.
My attitude toward this problem is to suppose we have to choose a single slogan to mobilize behind in this particular political situation. The leading reformist slogan now is "Defend Our Democracy." Several Marxist Unity Group members have put forward "Win the Battle for Democracy" or "We Need a Democratic Constitution" resolutions in their chapters. Other socialist caucuses stick to a straight "We Need Socialism" slogan. Lastly, it's possible to merge democracy and socialism into a "We Need Democracy and Socialism" slogan. The first reformist slogan is popular front politics with the Democratic Party. I don't think the second two slogans are for a popular front with Democrats because the Democratic Party opposes a democratic constitution. I also think the second slogans are more incisive, focused, and have more potential to mobilize a movement than either the third or fourth. Picking a slogan for the present is a different problem than speculating how future events will unfold. The only way to prepare for future uncertainty is to consolidate around a coherent ideology now.
You're obviously unfamiliar with the concept of a transitional program, not surprisingly so given your Maoist-Stalinist background. What we need is a slogan that addresses the current situation, but which does so in a way that leads us forward to the establishment of a revolutionary workers' democracy and to the consolidation of the working class as the only force capable of leading us out of the impasse. I'll try to explore what such a slogan would be in a blog essay in the next few days.
Just as a biographical corrective, neither Stalin nor Mao had any influence on the formation of my democratic politics. It was SDS's values of participatory democracy combined with the demand for a democratic republic in the Program of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party that crystallized my political perspective. Obviously, I am familiar with the concept of a transitional program and reject it in favor of democratic republicanism. The democratic republic is the transition required to advance to the democratization of the economy.
Thanks for this history, Gil.
DEMOCRATIC
SOCIALIST
EQUALTY
PARTY
But what does democratization of the economy mean? Shareholder democracy? German-style corporate-labor management? Or democratic centralism? A slogan should point us in a certain direction by summing up what we need to get there. It's a roadmap leading us from the present to the future. "Democracy" by itself is too vague.