The Long March of the Penguins

Idealism, Capitalism, and Healthcare Justice

2009-11-16T00:13:00.008-05:00

This is a letter to the editor of my school's newspaper, in response to a letter in last week's edition (which can be read here.) I'm working on trimming down this letter to fit in the word limit, and there's always a chance it will be edited even further, so I'd like to post the full version here, just in case my point gets obscured for the sake of brevity.

To the Editor:

The healthcare reform bill that passed the US House is certainly an impressive piece of legislation, and makes a strong statement about how Congress feels healthcare should be administered in the United States. However, the impressive parts of the bill aren't such notes like the numbers of the people that will how be able to have health insurance, or the comprehensiveness of the new “public” health plan. Rather, what makes the Affordable Healthcare for America Act (HR 3962) so amazing is as an example of political and rhetorical maneuvering, successfully passing off a coup for the health insurance industry- and most likely their lapdogs in Congress- as a significant “reform” to the benefit of working people.

To be fair, both to the bill itself and its supporters who may take issue with what I am saying, HR 3962 does include a couple things which, taken by themselves, are pretty good. Removing anti-trust legislation, and stripping health insurance companies of the ability to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions or drop coverage when an insured person does get sick do represent some steps forward in curbing the power of the health insurance industry. However, these measures are but a small part of the overall bill, which couples each halting step in a potentially good direction with measures that will serve to further fatten the coffers of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. For example, pricing in the “public option” is left to the private sector, a contradiction if I've ever heard one. Furthermore, mandating that all Americans have some sort of health insurance has the result of either herding people into high-cost, low-benefit private plans, or criminalizing their lack of health insurance, subjecting them to fines which they probably would not be able to afford anyway. How this will help solve the problem of medical bankruptcy is quite beyond me.

Of course, the amendment process in Congress means that this bad bill gets even worse. The now-infamous amendment proposed by Michigan congressman Bart Stupak (a Democrat, mind you) prevents people from using subsidies to buy insurance that would cover abortion, even if they use their own money to pay for that specific provision, as an article in the November 9^th edition of the New York Times points out. Medicare funding is also being cut, which leads one to wonder how that system will survive as more and more people become eligible for the program. So, when the letter to the editor in last week's Lafayette mentions this healthcare bill as a step in the right direction, I have to wonder if he and I are in fact reading the same bill, or if the writer thinks that these regressive measures are in fact strides toward a “happy medium” between “idealism and capitalism."

Is there another option to this bill? You bet. HR 676, which in thirteen pages does more good than the 1,990 page HR 3962 by abolishing private health insurance companies and effectively creating a system of Medicare for the entire US population, would be an incredibly positive step forward by mandating that health coverage will no longer be administered through a system whose purpose is to make money off of people's pain and fear. In the context of our current healthcare system, this would certainly be a major reform, and one which would be met with outright hostility by the health insurance industry. It's also likely that, if brought to a vote in the US House, it would fail, as the Democratic Party is pathetically divided, and in many ways is just as much a heel to the health insurance industry (and capitalism as a whole) as the Republicans. But, contrary to the tortured logic of “bi-partisanship” that many political leaders like to put forward, and the spirit of “compromise” in last week's letter to the editor, the health of human beings is not something we should be dithering on. I, for one, proudly stand on the side of “idealism,” or perhaps more accurately, justice.

Update: the edited version of this letter was printed in the Lafayette without modification (so far as I can tell, at least.) However, it is somewhat frustrating to see my letter- which I edited down due to a claimed word limit on submissions to the paper- being published next to a rather lengthy letter from someone whining about the supposed persecution of Greek life on campus.

The Specter of Sixty

2009-04-28T16:56:00.005-04:00

Coming back from my morning classes, I was treated to some interesting news filtering in from the political side of the internets. Apparently Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) is now Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA). Gone is the interesting tid-bit of Pennsylvania being a state with a pro-life Democratic senator and a pro-choice Republican senator. Gone is the Republican primary battle that many pundits say Specter would have lost. Inching ever closer, however, is the fabled number 60, which will give the Democrats (along with their caucus compatriots, "Independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman and "Independent" Bernie Sanders) the theoretical ability to pass legislation without the threat of a fillibuster. Once this mess with Minnesota gets sorted out, the Democrats will finally be able to get that progressive agenda pushed through that they've really really wanted to do for so many years, but have been blocked by those evil Republicans. Finally, we'll get universal healthcare, troops out of Iraq, the right for workers to organise, and equal rights for all!

Heh, okay.

I don't think even the most self-deluded Democrats think this. But it seems like much of the media is portraying Specter's switch as a major coup by the Democrats, and while it may be an important propaganda victory for them on the lines of "moderates leaving the sinking and ever-rightward-moving ship of the GOP," it's not like this will give them another reliable vote on things like, say, the Employee Free Choice Act. That is, if the Democratic Party as a whole is even interested in pursuing that anymore anyway.

Four Years On

2009-04-19T16:07:00.002-04:00

A little over four years ago, I made a decision that dramatically changed my life. At the time, I had considered myself a socialist for a few years already, but wasn't really involved. I had decided that I wanted to join a group during the 2004 elections, and was reading up on various parties and organisations that I thought I might be interested in. The parties running candidates had a particular draw for me, though I had more or less ruled out Workers World and the SWP for political reasons. That left the Green Party (not socialist, but I was considering it anyway), the Socialist Equality Party, and the Socialist Party USA. I found a Green Party group in my home county and worked with them for a little while, but in April of 2005, I decided to actually join the Socialist Party and do my best to get involved.

In retrospect, I think I got really lucky. In the four years since I've joined the SP, I felt I've really grown, both politically and as a person in general. Part of it is just the social aspect; I've met so many interesting and friendly people because of my involvement with the SP (and the socialist movement in general.) But being connected to layers of activists and long-time socialists has been extremely helpful in developing my own politics, and absorbing ideas and organising strategies. While I still have a long way to go as an organiser, I feel I've been able to learn and apply things from my experiences with the SP, and hope to continue learning and organising into the future.

At this point in history, I think it's more important than ever for all socialists to be organised and involved. If you're looking for an organisation to join, the Socialist Party ranks very highly on my list. Maybe you should check us out!

Occupy Everything Right Now?

2009-04-11T17:35:00.007-04:00

I finally got around to watching Across the Universe yesterday, something I've been meaning to do for a while but never seem to remember when I'm in the library. I'm not really a Beatles fan, so that aspect of the film wasn't its main draw for me, though I did like the way the songs were integrated.

Mainly, I wanted to watch it to see their treatment of Students for a Democratic Society (cast in the film as the much less punchy-sounding "Students for Democratic Reform") and how the film approached the anti-war and radical student movement as a whole. When I first heard about Across the Universe, I was somewhat concerned that the social movements of the 1960s would get glossed over somewhat to the advantage of cool footage about hippies, which is how some retellings of the 1960s end up. Thankfully, it ended up not being the case, though I still felt the treatment of the anti-war and student radical movement in Across the Universe seemed somewhat superficial. It was also very condensed, going from the anti-war marches of 1967 to the Columbia student strike to the adventurist terrorism of the Weather Underground in what seemed like the course of a year or so in the film, when in fact the evolution of the American student left was a longer and much more complicated process. Now, I know this wasn't the point of the film, but in the context of the recent and ongoing upsurge of militancy in the US, particularly in the context of the student occupations, I wish it had been.

I have yet to take part in a student occupation, and given the political climate at Lafayette College, my guess is that I won't be taking part in one during the remainder of my tenure here, though I would not want to be so hasty as to write off any future radicalisation. I would argue that student occupations are an excellent tactic given the right conditions and a clear strategy for said occupation, and despite some issues and problems that came up with even the most successful student occupations, the examples of the Rochester and first New School occupations should serve as lessons of when and how to use a student occupation successfully. These, along with similar occupations at colleges around the country, the most notable probably being the one at NYU, have generated significant interest and media attention, which will probably be good for the left in the US on the whole.

However, not all the occupations have been recieved well, even by other leftists. An article in The Nation, for example, talks about how the second New School occupation was met with a heap of abuse, particularly on the point that the second occupation didn't seem to have any demands, and it almost looked like the occupation was for its own sake, rather than having some sort of goal in mind. Now, a lof of the press I've read from and about the second New School occupation seems to vindicate that view, and I remember being very confused about the occupation compared to the clarity of the first one. But the article goes further to state that because of this apparent lack of demands and organisation, many people failed to support the occupation once engaged. The article focuses attitudes of the faculty, mentioning for example that during the NYU occupation, "some left-leaning faculty privately complained that they couldn't totally support the students because of their naive strategy and incoherent, sprawling demands."

While it makes perfect sense to criticise a perceived lack of cohesion to a movement, once the rubber hits the road, it seems silly to withhold support even if the action or movement seems premature or non-cohesive. In some cases, it may make sense on a propaganda and reputation/recruitment level to support an action a group thinks is unwise. While using the Bolsheviks as a comparison may draw the charge of being a stale and and theoretical far leftists, I think the July Uprising illustrates an important point. In July 1917, workers in Petrograd staged an uprising against the provisional government. The Bolshevik party thought the uprising was premature (partially due to their own relative weakness at the time, I'm sure), but they refused to stand aside from the uprising, and participated to the best of their ability. This resulted in the arrest of many Bolshevik leaders, but also helped convince non-Bolshevik workers that they were serious about workers revolution, and would support such action even if they weren't leading it. To be sure, the situations being compared here are rather different, but I think the general point still stands: you can criticise a movement or action, but the price of abstention may be higher in the long run, and supporting something, even with criticism (which should never be forgotten) may help endear you to groups of unaffiliated radicals and activists which may then be more willing to hear and accept criticism.

So while I'm not sure I think the movement is ready to be "Occupying Everything Right Now," if for some reason this did happen, I would do my best to stand with them as far as they go, and hope that my comrades do the same.

Getting Back to Blogging

2009-03-08T23:50:00.004-04:00

Anything to avoid classwork, right?

Actually it's somewhat interesting; a short mention of blogging on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! said that college students that blog tend to be happier (though don't tell that to the people who have to read them...) And giving myself some additional focus outside of school might do some good, since I've been feeling somewhat stuck lately. So hopefully I can get back into this. As a result, the blog will become more personal and less political, though Marxism has taken over my brain by this point so there's really no avoiding politics.

But here's to being back (hopefully)!

Election Recommendations

2008-10-18T01:52:00.011-04:00

The general election is coming up quickly, with only a few more weeks to send in absentee ballots for out of state college voters like me, or to decided who to actually vote for like so many other people. For my part, I sent in my absentee ballot last week, marked with votes signifying an urge for radical change in American society that is sorely needed in this time of capitalist crisis. For other US voters that also have that urge, but aren't sure who to vote for yet, I offer to you somewhat of a voter's guide to this election. This guide is primarily focused on my home state of New Jersey, but I'll add some out of state races as I go on.

President and Vice-President: Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander (Socialist Party USA). There are three socialist parties running presidential tickets this year, the Socialist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. All three of them present revolutionary socialist programs and are at least worth looking into. However, with the state of ballot access law as it is in the US, not all the presidential tickets will be on the ballot in every state; all three will be on in some states, while others will have only one or two of the three, and many will unfortunately have none.

Out of these three sets of candidates though, I recommend the Socialist Party USA's ticket of Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander the most. The SP's platform is the most well-rounded and complete of the three, and also outlines a strong commitment to radical democracy in all aspects of society. In addition, the multi-tendency nature of the Socialist Party allows it to be widely inclusive within a strong Statement of Principles, so that socialist regroupment sorely needed in the US today can best be done through the Socialist Party, compared to both the SWP and PSL. For example, when the SP began its presidential nomination process, it extended a call to any and all interested socialist organizations in the US to collaborate in the 2008 elections, to present a united socialist electoral front in as many races as possible. While only two organizations responded, some success came out of the effort in the nomination of Stewart Alexander, a long-time member of the Peace and Freedom Party (a socialist party only active in California) as the SP's vice-presidential nominee. Unfortunately, the Peace and Freedom Party made an aggregious tactical and opportunistic error in nominating Ralph Nader for president rather than any socialist candidates. Nevertheless, the PFP still remains a socialist party, and hopefully people in the PFP committed to independent socialist political action will realize that course on the presidential level once again.

Where Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander are not on the ballot, there are a couple options. If either the Socialist Workers or Socialism and Liberation candidates are on the ballot, then they are worth voting for. Alternatively, you can write in Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander (which is also recommended for states with no socialist candidates on the ballot.)

US Senate from New Jersey: Sara Lobman (Socialist Workers Party). Sara Lobman is the only socialist candidate running for US Senate in New Jersey. Because of this, and because her program is one worth supporting (at least critically), she is worth voting for.

US Congress, 2nd New Jersey District: Tino Rozzo (Independent/Socialist Party USA). Tino Rozzo is no longer a member of the Socialist Party, but is still listed on the ballot as such. While I wouldn't describe his platform as revolutionary socialist, the fact that he is running on a socialist platform means that he is worth voting for.

US Congress, 10th New Jersey District: Michael Taber (Socialist Workers Party). Like Sara Lobman, Michael Taber is worth supporting in this election. Interestingly, Taber's only opponent is the Democratic incumbent (as the district is in the urban era of North Jersey dominated by Democratic machine politics), so Taber will probably get a (somewhat artificially) high percentage of the vote in this district.

US Congress, 11th New Jersey District: Skip it or write-in. There are no socialist or independent left candidates in this election, so my recommendation would be to either not vote, or to write in your favorite radical.

Something to note is that there is an independent candidate in this election; Chandler Tedholm is running under the slogan "For the People." While this may indicate at least a populist tilt, and indeed some aspects of his program are rather progressive. For example, he is opposed to the war in Iraq and supports a single payer healthcare system (then again, some Democrats also support these things.) However, looking into other positions indicate a rather disturbing and reactionary side to the Tedholm campaign. On immigration, Tedholm says:

"There is no mystery how to accomplish a border closure. The technology was perfected in 1914. A barrier of barbed wire in some depth, backed machine guns, backed by artillery or air support would do the trick. There are only two requirements– you have to be willing to commit enough manpower to man the line 24/7/365 (and to inspect all of the supposedly legitimate traffic that could be used for smuggling), and you have to be ready to shoot to kill."

While he does mention afterward that he would "like to think we are not the kind of people who would tolerate that kind of brutality for long," a willingness to stoop to such brutal measures in the first place against working class people of other countries who are looking for work means that Mr. Tedholm should not be supported by anyone who considers themselves socialist, internationalist, pro-worker/immigrant, etc. Furthermore, Tedholm vaccilates on taxes as a "neccessary evil" rather than giving a more detailed policy, and supports the war in Afghanistan.

Madison, NJ Borough Council: Write-In Peter Moody (Socialist Party USA). I'm running a write-in campaign for Borough Council, on the SP-USA platform. Admittedly, I didn't do much for this campaign, though I tried to actually get on the ballot earlier in the year. Unfortunately, I didn't get enough signatures. Still, a write-in campaign continues, and if you live in Madison, I hope you vote for me.

No to the Wall Street Bailout! (a statement from the Socialist Party USA)

2008-09-29T21:43:00.003-04:00

I haven't used this blog to promote the SP-USA that much (hell, I haven't used this blog that much period, despite well intentions otherwise.) Still, given the situation, it seemed like a good thing to post.

NO TO THE WALL STREET BAILOUT!
by the Socialist Party USA, National Action Committee

The current "financial crisis" is not just a temporary setback or because of the lack of regulation in the financial sector. The collapse of the financial sector is indicative of the total failure of the capitalist economy. In recent years, the leading recipients of this proposed bailout have attempted to justify their “Washington consensus” of decimating social safety nets, massive cuts to wages and benefits, and privatization of public services, in the name of mercilessly strict adherence to the “tough love” and “sacrifice” of the “free market.” This deregulation and dismantling of any social protections was a logical step for the capitalists represented by the Republican and Democratic Parties. The call now for regulation of the markets is a hypocritical call by those who continue to promote the free market as the solution to everything. In demonstrating the cynical facade behind the unwaivering economic ideology they've peddled for decades, these same power brokers and politicians who demanded the near complete deregulation of the financial sector under "free market" principles, are now calling upon all tax-paying U.S. workers to "come together as Americans" and take "collective responsibility" for their boundless greed and ultimate financial failure under the very standards they themselves imposed.

Congressional Democrats, through continuous pledges to reach a "bipartisan" solution to the financial meltdown, have predictably fallen over themselves to reaffirm their reliable role as one of the two great parties of capital. As Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed on September 26th, "We will not leave until legislation is passed that will be signed by the president. The markets [sic] need a message from us that we're acting." Barack Obama, whose $25 million dollars in campaign contributions from the financial industry in this election has exceeded the amount received by John McCain, has likewise urged bipartisan passage of the bailout package, "in the spirit of cooperation on behalf of the American people.

As socialists, we understand that there can no longer be any rational debate on the question of pursuing the "free market" as an alternative to the compelling urgency for a socialist transformation of society. The need of the largest capitalist firms to wipe out competition has already led to the centralization of economic power, but in the form of private ownership of an unaccountable ruling class of professional speculators, not of working people.

If we the people are now to publicly socialize the costs of our ruling class' disastrous practices, as our corporate politicians demand, what justification can be given for handing the very pillars of our economic security back to their private and unaccountable ownership, once resurrected?

The Socialist Party rejects the bail-out plan. Instead, we propose that the government take over the financial sector, and then delegate the distribution of home loans to a decentralized network of non-profit credit unions. These institutions are far less likely to push bogus loans than the white-collar criminals which control the current financial institutions.

While opposing the bail-out we also call for programs which will provide support to, and help empower individuals, families, and working people as a whole to take power away from the corporate powers that be.

We support building millions of units of low-density. high quality, and low-cost housing.

We support a federally funded socialized healthcare system which would eliminate health insurance companies and be controlled by locally elected community health committees.

We support elimination of anti-workers laws and give all workers the right to organize through card check off and the right to strike.

We support laws that would encourage the creation of worker-owned/ run institutions.

We support massive investment into mass-transit and alternatives to fossil fuels.

And finally we call for the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan (which includes thousands of national guard troops which have been taken away from their families and jobs to fight oversees), slashing our military budget by at least 50% and establishing a steeply progressive federal income tax system.

The above actions would improve working people’s lives, bring the thousands of troops overseas home, raise hundreds of millions of dollars and take the tax burden off of low and moderate income individuals and families.

The real solution to the vast majority of these problems would be to move rapidly to a socialist society, one in which housing is provided to all as a basic right, the financial sector and commanding heights of the economy are made publicly accountable through social ownership and worker control of the economy, and production is oriented toward the needs of working people, rather than maximizing the profits of an obsolete ruling class of multi-millionaires and billionaires. We, the majority who work for a living, can no larger afford to produce and relinquish all that maintaining the private profits for our ruling class entails!

Anti-Fascism in Suburban NJ

2008-08-05T02:11:00.003-04:00

I got Mark Steel's Reasons to be Cheerful for my birthday this year. I found it to be a very interesting, informative, and funny look into recent British history from a socialist perspective, and I found several quotes in it that I hope to use as starting points for various rants in the future. I'll post a more complete review later, but for the moment I just wanted to mention a small part the book. Early on in Reasons to be Cheerful, Mark talks about his involvement in anti National Front activities:

"Thousands became adept in the art of removing NF stickers. After a while, you could reach out and yank one off a post box without even breaking your stride. But what a bastard if one was well stuck down. How many people at that time were later for work because their route had taken them past a particularly stubborn sticker? Because once you'd started,to leave it even half intact was an admission of defeat. So you'd stand for five minutes, scratching alternately with a key and a two-pence piece. Eventually you could resume your journey, having reduced this sticker to four torn white corners and no middle. 'That,' you would say to yourself, 'is a Nazi-free post box.'"

Last night I stopped by Quick-Chek with some friends, and ran into some other folks we collectively knew. Mid conversation, I noticed a payphone nearby had some stickers on it from the National Alliance, which is a far right/white nationalist group, saying "Bring the Troops Home and Put them on the Border," or some quite similar anti-immigrant slogan. Recalling what I had recently read, I quickly tore the stickers off, and proceeded to scratch at their remnants, all the while muttering to my friends about fascists in town. A rather small incident in the grand scheme of things, but I can walk by that payphone with the confidence that it is now a Nazi-free payphone.

Pard Politics

2008-07-10T17:50:00.003-04:00

A couple days ago, I was invited onto the team of the Pard Politics blog, created by fellow students at Lafayette College ("pard" is short for leopard, which is Lafayette's mascot.) I think it'll be an interesting experience to spar with other politically active students on campus, though as the only socialist contributor, I will no doubt be in a minority. Hell, even with the school's population as a whole I could probably count the number of people who consider themselves socialist on one hand. But I look forward to this nonetheless.

May Day 2008

2008-05-06T23:12:00.004-04:00

May Day this year produced some interesting, and I would say significant, intersections of militant social movements here in the US. First, we had the immigrant rights demonstrations, which have been a sizeable part of May Day in the US for the past couple years. While the marches this year weren't as big as previous years, according to some reports, they nevertheless showed that many thousands of people actively support the struggles of immigrants and undocumented workers in the US. In particular, I found the feeder march I participated in to be particularly heartening.

The Socialist Party contingent in the New York City May Day march started in Chinatown with a feeder march associated with the Chinese Staff and Workers Association, a quasi-union/quasi-community group based in Chinatown. The pre-march rally they held was very well put together, with petitioners milling through the audience, and a podium with speeches given (practically simultaneously) in English, Spanish, and Mandarin. The feeder march started more or less on time, and while there was some hassle regarding the planned route, we all made it up okay to Union Square Park for the main march.

Unfortunately, the main march seemed less organised. I'm not sure if the speaker rotation started late, or if they were just inviting anyone who wanted to speak up to the platform, but the pre-march speakers dragged on for a long time, and the Socialist Party folks left before the march had even begun, since we needed to set up for a screening of Wobblies! at the Muste Institute. However, I heard from a few people that there were so many speakers that the march ran past its street permit, so once they actually got on the road, they were marching on the side walks and in between cars. So that's a good lesson for anyone on the planning committee of a large demonstration that includes a march: speakers are good, but don't overrun your street permit!

Anyway, the demonstrations seemed well attended overall; maybe smaller than 2007, but still rather large, with a very broad range of groups. The Latin American community was out in force, there was a large Asian community with the CSWA, and of course the left/far left was out and active. At the feeder march, the only organised left presences that were there were the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, and as per usual, all the SWP was doing was selling books and newspapers. There were also one or two people selling Workers Vanguard, the newspaper of the Sparticist League. Interestingly, there was someone there working with the CSWA who claimed to be affiliated with Lutte Ouvrière, a semi-clandestine Trotskyist group based in France. At the main march, I saw tables, papers, and signs for the Workers World Party, Freedom Socialist Party, Internationalist Group, Democratic Socialists of America (kind of), and probably some others that I'm currently forgetting. There was also an anarchist contingent that marched with the CSWA feeder march, whose main chant seemed to be "Anarchy? Fuck yeah!" They more or less summed up everything I dislike about some wings of the anarchist movement in their contingent.

Peter Moody For Madison Borough Council

2008-04-10T21:10:00.007-04:00

After some deliberation, I have decided to run for borough council in my hometown of Madison, NJ. While the electoral system is certainly rigged against any sort of political action outside that of the twin parties of capitalism and war, election campaigns are still one of the best ways for socialists to get out their message of a new society based on human need, full democracy, and workers power. In addition, it gives socialists a chance to explain how individual policies and programmes, while not fully socialist in themselves, can help strengthen the hand of the working class and help give it another voice and weapon in its struggle against capitalism.

To be fair, my town is not exactly a hotbed of class struggle. As a small suburban community of 16,000 people, most of whom either work in small businesses in the town or commute to New York City to work, it will no doubt be harder to connect with residents on the need for a radical voice on the borough council, but even in Madison there are concerns about over-development, a tax burden based wholly on regressive property taxes, and issues of democracy which socialist representation on the council can help remedy, and subsequently provide other small communities with a way forward to contribute in their own way for the fight for a socialist future.

Fortunately, unlike many municipal elections around the US, New Jersey law allows me to run on a socialist banner, as opposed to "independent" or "nonpartisan," so even people who don't hear about my campaign before the election will be able to know that I stand on an anti-capitalist platform just by looking at the ballot. As a member of and candidate of the Socialist Party USA, I support and run on their full platform. However, I'm working on some particular, more in-depth planks to address issues and make changes geared specifically for Madison, which I will post here, along with a campaign website, sometime in the near future.

Finally, for any Madison, New Jersey residents that read this, I need 100 signatures by the end of May in order to appear on the ballot in November, so please get in contact with me so that you can sign my petition. Every signature will help put a genuine alternative on the ballot for Madison in 2008.

Vote Socialist in 2008!

Edit 19 April: I've created a new blog specifically for my election campaign, which will serve as the campaign website for the time being.

Greens and Revolutionary Socialists: What Relationship Should There Be?

2008-04-07T21:10:00.003-04:00

There has been a lot of talk about Green parties among members of the socialist left recently, particularly since there are several major Green campaigns that socialists in general, and revolutionary socialists in particular are trying to orient themselves around. In the US this is represented in socialist attitudes toward the Nader and McKinney campaigns, and in the UK, Siân Berry's campaign for mayor of London is attracting attention since there are strong arguments that she is indeed a socialist. As a result of these fairly strong and potentially promising campaigns, the question of whether revolutionary socialists should support Green candidates or not. This is by no means an easy question, as Green politics can waver over a large political/ideological spectrum, but I hopefully intend to tackle some of the debates over supporting Green candidates and Green Parties, and contribute my own thoughts to the conversation.

When looking at the situation around the London mayoral election, it presents some more interesting questions than elections in the US for two reasons. First, the election isn't entirely first past the post/winner take all, and does take voters second preference choice into account. While it's by no means perfect, it is certainly not a bad step for electoral democracy. Second, the Green candidate in this election, Siân Berry, is actually a socialist. She is a noted supporter of the Green Left tendency within the GPEW, which advocates for a unified anti-capitalist movement in and around the Green Party. While I personally believe that, in the long run, such a movement will probably have to leave the Green Party to maintain its political cohesion and socialist platform, the fact that there is a vocal and active socialist tendency within the Green Party of England and Wales makes for a good argument to support Green candidates affiliated with that tendency. However, the fact that Lindsey German, who is a revolutionary socialist, is also standing in the London mayoral election should make the choice somewhat easier, at least from my perspective. While there is no love lost between me and the Socialist Workers Party, and to some extent the IST in general, I feel that it should be a point of political principle for revolutionary socialists to vote for revolutionary socialist candidates wherever possible. Ideally, if the London mayoral elections used an instant runoff ballot rather than a supplementary ballot, it would not be unreasonable to call for a vote for Lindsey German first, Siân Berry second, and Ken Livingstone third, but unfortunately this is not the case.

The Green Party in the United States is somewhat of a different case. While the Green movement in the US was originally rather left wing and even Marxist influenced (a la the tradition of the Die Grüne in Germany), it seems like history and political manoeuvring have not been kind to the left-wing and socialist tendencies within American Green movement. In short, there were originally two different organisations battling for the name "Green Party." The first, known as the Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) was considered to be more left-wing, with ideological roots in the social ecology, deep ecology, and eco-socialist movements. Not exactly your traditional left-wingers, but with a definite socialist undercurrent. In addition, the G/GPUSA was the carrier of the idea of the "anti-party party" that was originally formulated for the Green Committees of Correspondence, forerunner to the entire Green movement in the US. The second group, the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP), was a more moderate grouping and more focused on electoral action. The ASGP was formed out of the 1996 presidential election and the first Green presidential campaign (where they ran Ralph Nader for the first time), and a strange relationship of cooperation and competition between the two Green organisations resulted in the victory of the ASGP (which changed its name to the Green Party US in 2001), and the eventual decline of the G/GPUSA. Technically, the G/GPUSA still exists today, though it has no status as an official political party, and seems to function primarily as a left grouping within the Green Party. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be a particularly well known organisation in the Greens or out, so doesn't seem to serve as an organised left tendency within the Green Party today.

Nevertheless, there are still many people in the Green Party that would consider themselves socialists of some sort. I'd imagine that many of them are unaffiliated to any larger socialist organisation, though there are a few socialist organisations that undertake active work within the Green Party. In particular, Solidarity, the International Socialist Organization, and Socialist Alternative either do work within the Greens or have at some point in the recent past.

Solidarity's perspective on the Green Party I feel I have the most familiarity with, as I am a member of Solidarity and have heard some of their members speak on the issue. My understanding of their perspective on the Green Party is that Solidarity is involved with the GPUS because the Green Party is currently the largest and most organised option for left-wing independent political action in the US, and when large groups of progressives break from the Democratic Party, the Green Party is the logical choice for them to go to. As such, Solidarity should take part in and help build the Green Party as a means of challenging the Democrats from the left in the broadest possible way. In short, the argument sounds like a call to build a broad left party. From some perspective, that sounds great; even a reformist broad left party that can seriously engage in social movements and contest elections would be a good step forward in the context of the US political system. However, with this fairly modest goal, the Green Party (and Solidarity's strategy regarding the Greens) falls somewhat short. First, the Green Party does not have a particularly working class perspective; rather, its programme is broadly populist. While its platform has admirable focuses against war, in favour of progressive economic programmes, and for environmental protection, a lot of the rhetoric used by the Green Party seems to be focused on people as individuals, regardless of their class. This attracts many people such as "eco-capitalists;" people with a good environmental perspective, but still either accept the current social order as a necessary thing, or wholeheartedly embrace it with occasional exceptions. This is probably due in part to the fairly weak connection that the Green Party on the whole has to many organise social struggles in the US, and there is at least some sign that the Cynthia McKinney campaign and related efforts might help change that, though I for one am not holding my breath. Second, and this point ties into the first to some degree, the Green Party is somewhat inconsistent when it comes to its independent political action. Even in 2000, at the apparent height of the Green Party's influence and media attention, Ralph Nader said that his campaign, and by some extension, other Green campaigns, were primarily in order to put pressure on the Democrats to try and push them to the left. Not exactly putting forth the best effort to build an independent challenge to the Democratic Party. Third, and this is a problem with Solidarity's apparent strategy, there seems to be no discussion about what to do after the Greens. Specifically, if/when the Green Party does end up capitulating to the Democrats in some fashion (either by politically folding or entering into some major coalition), where do socialists and advocates for independent political action go from there? While such an event might not be in the near future for the Green Party, it is definitely something that Solidarity, and other socialists in the Green Party should be seriously considering and making some rough plans for, so that they won't be caught unprepared when it finally does happen. As a side note, I find it kind of odd that Solidarity doesn't take this "one or two steps ahead" approach, as I see such an approach consistent with the idea of the transitional method, one of the best things that Trotskyism has brought to the table in terms of socialist theory. Solidarity at least has its roots in the Trotskyist tradition (a couple different ones even!), so one would think that they would take the transitional method to heart and at least try to use it effectively in their political work. Then again, Solidarity has, in the words of a comrade of mine, "throw the baby out with the bath water" in terms of Leninist organisation theory, so perhaps there is some connection between that and the apparent non-use of the transitional method in their politics.

I have less experience with the ISO's and Socialist Alternative's individual perspectives on the Green Party, so I'm not as qualified to comment on them. However, from what I have read from each organisation on the Green Party, I feel I agree with Socialist Alternative's stance more than the ISO's (or Solidarity's, for that matter.) Socialist Alternative does admit the limitations of the Greens (their left-populist politics and weak class base, dangerous liasons with the Democrats, etc), and calls for a new party with an explicit working class base, with "left Greens" as a main component of said new party. While some of this rhetoric might just be parroting that of their English and Welsh counterpart (mass workers party and so on), it's certainly a welcome idea, and one that I would certainly like to take part in building. However, SocAlt is apparently relying on the Nader campaign to try and get a new party off the ground, saying in an article on the subject that they "urge Nader and Gonzalez to use their campaign to popularise this idea [of a broad left third party]." While the argument is indeed admirable, based on Nader's behaviour towards the Greens in 2000 and 2004, I do not see him as willing to build any type of broad left party. Now, that same article by Socialist Alternative admits they acknowledge this problem too, but they seem to treat is as due to "mistakes" by the Nader campaign as opposed to Nader's political opportunism and fundamental unwillingness to build a new party. So I suspect that Socialist Alternative will be let down yet again after the 2008 elections, though I would love to be proven wrong.

Nevertheless, the argument for a broad left party with a basic anti-capitalist platform is not something that Socialist Alternative should give up if Nader fails yet again to deliver, and it is also something that the rest of the socialist left (whether they're in the Greens or not) should argue for and help build. At the same time though, there is still need to lay the groundwork for a future revolutionary socialist party, though I believe that working through a broad left party (in a democratic, non-sectarian manner!) will be one of the best ways to achieve that. Touching back to the transitional method, we should use that idea of connecting everyday social struggles, major reforms, and the eventual revolutionary transformation of society together in order to build support for both types of organisations.

On a completely different note, this is the best metal version of a disco-ish song ever.

From the Iraqi Freedom Congress: No to US War on Iran… The US Administration's Arrogance Must Be Stopped

2007-11-26T23:05:00.000-05:00

This statement was put out by the Iraqi Freedom Congress a little over two weeks ago. I feel it gives a clear message in favour of secular democracy, not only in Iraq, but in Iran and throughout the Middle East as well. Unfortunately, the IFC is largely ignored by the US anti-war movement because the main antiwar "broad front" organisations either pander to the Democratic Party (UFPJ) or give near blanket support to all forms of resistance to US imperialism, even the reactionary ones (ANSWER). In relation to Iran, much of the anti-war movement doesn't seem to be putting forth good positions either, except the largely British Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPI). Hopefully, with the work of likeminded activists in the US, their ideas will spread here.

From my perspective, the IFC and HOPI probably would each gain a lot by trying to work together, though HOPI's position is more explicitly socialist than the IFC, and the split in the Worker-Communist Parties of Iran and Iraq may cause some difficulty in this.

A report has come out yesterday by the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA on Iran's nuclear file, as a result the US administration launched a vicious campaign in the media to prepare for a new war no less brutality on its war on Iraq, but this time on Iran.

Militarization and the use of force is a key element in the US administration ideology to impose its hegemony on the world. Beating the war drums is always part of US policy to contain its international competitors such as the European Union, Russia and China, and this policy is an extension to the one that is implemented in Iraq to wage the second Gulf War and the imposition of economic blockade, which lasted thirteen year then its occupation of Iraq. The US administration justified its inhuman policy with the pretext which is "possession of weapons of mass destruction".

On the other hand, the Iranian regime is trying to defend itself by possessing nuclear weapons and ignoring the safety and security of the people of Iran without regards to what will happen to millions of innocents if the US administration launched the war against Iran. At the same time, the Iranian regime is trying to take advantage of this atmosphere to push the Iranian people to the holocaust of war in order to preserve itself.

In the midst of this conflict the voices of Iranian nationalist parties and the others who are loyal to the US administration have risen to support the US war on Iran, as did the Iraqi parties who were known as London Conference parties in the eve of war and occupation of Iraq.

We call the Iranian people attention not to be fooled by the US policy to depose the mullahs and that they would be given their freedom by war, destruction of their country and tightening the economic blockade. Iraq is an example of this vicious policy, that is for more than seventeen years and the people pay for the US policy. For more than four years of occupation, more than 1.2 million people lost their lives, more than 4 million people were displaced and dozens of innocents fall as a result of the civil and sectarian war, political chaos, terrorism and a dark future where nothing could be seen but sectarian Mafia. Ultimately the Iraqis gained nothing but havoc and destruction. The Iraq Freedom Congress announces its condemnation and censure to the US administration's attempts to prepare the climate for launching a war against Iran under any pretext and justification. The Iraq Freedom Congress stands by the humanitarian front in Iran, Iraq and the world against war on Iran and calls on all his supporters in Iraq and the world to strengthen the ranks of the protesting movement against the senseless endeavors of the US administration to impose their arrogance on the world. It also calls on the Iranians not to be fooled by the empty propaganda and inhuman policies of the Iranian parties who share the US the same vision because it will not bring anything but vain. The way to remove the danger of war on Iran is by tightening the struggle of the people of Iran to topple the mullahs which is the only way to gain freedom.

Some 2007 Election Results

2007-11-08T23:43:00.000-05:00

Since someone mentioned the Labor Party in a comment, I thought I'd try to write something about that organisation, their electoral ambitions in South Carolina, and socialist perspectives on them. That's still in the works, but in the meantime I thought I'd share some socialist electoral results from the November 6 election.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was most interested in Matt Geary's campaign for At-Large Boston City Council, since it seemed like one of the most well-rounded socialist campaigns this cycle (odd numbered years always being a bit low on socialist participation). Out of nine candidates running for four at-large seats in an officially non-partisan election, Matt came in 7th with 3,025 votes (about 2.4%). Not a bad run for Socialist Alternative's first candidate.

The Socialist Workers Party has a tradition of standing the most candidates for elections (which makes this the only real time you see or hear from them, except when they're selling books at demonstrations), and they seem to have held up this tradition this year as well. SWP election results I've found are as follows: in Des Moines Iowa, mayoral candidate Diana Newberry came in second out of two with around 20% of the vote (don't know about the count.) In Houston Texas, mayoral candidate Amanda Ullman came in second out of three with around 7.% of the vote (again, don't have the vote count.) In Massachusetts, William Estrada ran for At Large Boston City Council (same race as Matt Geary) and came in 8th out of nine with 2,432 votes (1.94%.) In New Jersey, 29th District State Senate candidate Sara Lobman came in 6th out of 6 with 95 votes (0.5%), and 29th District State Assembly candidate came in 8th out of 10 (with the top two vote-getters being elected) with 233 votes (0.8%.) Except for the New Jersey races, all of these elections were officially non-partisan.

Finally, a race that I did not know about when I made my previous 2007 elections post. Silver Persinger ran for 9th District Virginia State Senate as an independent, though he joined the Socialist Party USA earlier this year. He came in 2nd out of 2 with 3,787 votes (18.3%.)

Now that that's over with, on to 2008, right? Probably, and since it's a presidential election year, I expect several socialist parties to run candidates on some level. So far, the Socialist Party has nominated its presidential ticket, Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander, and two SP-USA members have declared intent to run for congress in their districts. Hopefully these people will be joined by others who are interested in providing a radical, socialist alternative at the polls.

Some Good News from Norway

2007-09-20T01:18:00.000-04:00

Last week on 10 September, Norway held elections for mayors and municipal councils, and for county councils. The results ended up with the Socialist Left Party's share of the vote plummeting, and the other two parties of the governing "Red Green Coalition" (the Norwegian Labour Party and Centre Party) making modest gains.

However, in terms of electoral breakthroughs, the revolutionary socialist Red Electoral Alliance (Rødt Valgallianse, now just Rødt) made significant gains in elections. It increased its share of municipal council seats from 57 to 66, and kept its county council seats at 8. Also, Rødt politician Knut Henning Thygesen was elected mayor in the town of Risør, the first Rødt member to be elected to such an office. This marks a good breakthrough for the organisation since it lost its only member of the Storting in 1997.

Congratulations to Rødt, and well wishes for future successes as a revolutionary socialist party!

Leninism Against Leninists, Trotskyism Against Trotskyists (Democracy Against democrats?)

2007-09-10T11:37:00.001-04:00

or, Why I Choose to Work in “Centrist” Organisations

A couple weeks ago, I sent an e-mail to a few socialist listservs I'm a member of as an attempt to explain my opinions on possibilities for regroupment. I got some positive responses from a couple people (which I should respond to), so at least my post got some people thinking, which is what I intended.

There was, however, one response I received from a resident orthodox Trotskyist on the e-mail list. In his response, the writer expressed concern over my apparent willingness to work with “centrist” organisations instead of working with any of the more explicitly revolutionary socialist groups that exist in the US. He also delivered some criticism of what I mentioned as some individual organisations' strengths, such as Solidarity's union work, the Socialist Party's running of candidates, and the Scottish Socialist Party's open platform policy (which, despite some re-working that will probably need to be done after the Tommy Sheridan fiasco, still is a great idea in my opinion.) Now, I thought the writer made some good points about how even if an organisation tends to focus more on a particular issue than others, that doesn't necessarily make its position on said issue a good one. I will concede that point. And I do understand the writer's argument of how nearly all of the groups I mentioned are in some way “centrist,” but I feel the need to defend and explain why I am in centrist organisations, and why I think working within such groups is, at the moment, actually better than joining a “r-r-revolutionary” (for lack of a better term) organisation.

Now, in the Marxist/Trotskyist parlance, calling a party or organisation “centrist” implies that they tend to waver between revolutionary and reformist positions. Historically, organisations that have been called centrist were groups like the Independent Labour Party in 1930s-1950s Great Britain, which, while did not put off the idea of socialist revolution merely for “holiday speeches,” nevertheless acted in a reformist manner in the meantime. The writer also mentioned that lack of democratic structure and discipline within organisations also made them centrist. Given this definition, it actually makes some sense to consider the organisations I mentioned centrist. Within the Socialist Party (the organisation I work with the most) there is a definite split between revolutionary socialists and reformists/social democrats. There are also problems with our internal structure; in my opinion there's a lack of accountability between the locals and the national office, going both up and down the line. Part of this problem is the SP's apparent phobia of anything having remotely to do with “Leninism” or “democratic centralism.” In some sense, this is definitely an understandable fear, given the track record of many organisations that have claimed to use “democratic centralist” principles, and, if my history is correct, the fact that the Spartacist League has tried to take over the Socialist Party at least once (definitely in the 1970s, and perhaps once in the 1990s as well.)

However, it is important to note that, for democracy to actually be an effective form of organisation, some degree of centralism is inherently necessary. It is absolutely essential to arrive at decisions through the most open and democratic means possible, but once those decisions are reached, there needs to be a commitment by members to do their best to carry out those decisions, even if they may not have agreed with the decision. In the realm of electoral politics, candidates running under the banner of a particular party should be held to upholding the platform and principles of that party, as they are a public representative for that party in the campaign, and in the halls of government, assuming they get elected (a rather small chance in the US, but you never know.) In any event, this combination of internal democracy and outward unity is essential for an organisation to build itself and become a power political force. As fellow blogger Korakious wrote: “democracy has no meaning without a degree of centralism; democracy - binding decisions = discussion. The minority should accept the sovereignty of the majority, without this meaning that the minority should be disrespected and/or marginalized.” In other words, it's best to operate on a system of “majority rule, minority rights,” so that the minority is not expelled or compelled to split from the organisation just because of its minority views. I would add on to this the idea that, after a period of action directed by the policy that's been voted on by the membership at whatever appropriate level, there should also be a time of reflection and analysis of how well the policies or tactics worked in that situation, so that if a similar situation comes around again, the party will be able to draw on experience to put forth a more effective policy.

But I've digressed a bit. The point is, I don't consider the Socialist Party to completely have the fully democratic structure that is should to optimally function. There's disconnect between the locals/members-at-large and the leadership, and far too many members-at-large that aren't represented by a local, regional, or state organisation. While the SP does a decently good job of not straying into the extreme centralism that some organisations can, I repeat that the lack of accountability both up and down the organisational ladder does harm to internal party democracy by failing to be adequately centralist and decentralist at the same time. Interesting trick that is, no?

Anyway, another revolutionary socialist may then ask me, “since the Socialist Party isn't the revolutionary socialist organisation you want it to be, then why have you remained there? Why don't you join an organisation that upholds the the same principles as you do?” I indeed have gotten this question before, once from a member of the ISO, and at least once from a member of the Spartacist League (for some reason, I run into Sparts more than I run into ISO folks... not sure why.) It's a good question, and unfortunately I never really thought through my reasoning until relatively recently, leaving me somewhat defenceless when it came to this question in the past. Hopefully this will help me answer that question with better certainty in the future. The primary reason why I haven't switched my membership to a “more revolutionary” organisation that the SP-USA (or Solidarity, which I am also a member of) is simply because not many of those organisations have good track records when it comes to upholding true democratic centralist principles either.

For example, let's look at the history of the Spartacist League. Now, despite the reputation they've earned in the 40 years since their formation, the minority tendency in the SWP that they were formed from had some interesting criticisms of the SWP, especially regarding the Civil Rights movement. Early on, the Spartacist League also did some decent union work, and were able to recruit gay activists and former students. However, somewhere along the line, it looks like something went horribly wrong. It might have been the first split that the SL suffered, when in 1971 a number of founding Spartacists left to form Spark, and affiliated themselves with Lutte Ouvrière in France. Because of this split, only one leader of the tendency which founded SL remained central in the organisation: James Robertson. It might have just been the pressure that was placed on all socialist groups during the 1970s, and the Spartacist League just wasn't able to cope. Whatever the reason, the SL now has the dubious honour of being one of the most sectarian, obnoxious, sometimes violent, and overall just annoying organisations on the socialist Left.

At least, that's how the organisation appears to people on the outside. On the inside, however, things could be quite different. For all we know, the Spartacist League may have one of the most rigorously democratic internal regimes of all the socialist organisations that exist in the US. That's one of the problems with organisations that operate on a very strict cadre manner (as if Lenin suddenly stopped writing about party organisation after 1902), people on the outside have almost no way of looking into the organisation first, to see if it actually meets their structural as well as political expectations. Even if the internal regime of the Spartacist League is this paragon of true democratic centralism, we on the outside cannot become aware of it.

Still, despite this possibility that the Spartacist League could have a highly democratic and open internal regime, I have severe doubts as to whether or not this is actually the case. My scepticism draws from the fact that, in the 40+ year existence of the Spartacist League, they managed to have practically one split a decade. Aside from the already-mentioned split that formed Spark in 1971, the Revolutionary Workers League was formed out of SL in 1976, and the Bolshevik Tendency split from the Sparts in 1982. Most recently, the Internationalist Group was spawned from the Spartacist League in 1996. Each of these groups split/were expelled/whatever from the Spartacist League for different reasons, but the fact that so many groups were ejected from the Sparts seems to indicate a lack of internal democracy resulting in insufficient political expression for the minority faction. At the same time, the situation could also be explained by the minority wanting special concessions from the majority, also something which is anti-democratic. My guess is some combination of both. Either way, this indicates a lack of respect for democracy on at least one side of the split.

Another, less blatant example might be the International Socialist Organization. The ISO, for better or for worse, is probably the largest organisation in the US that upholds some variant of Trotskyism, and indeed one of the larger socialist organisations in the US. It's probably one of the most represented organisation among the student Left, along with SDS and YDS. Now, as far as I know there has never been a major split in the ISO, except when they were expelled from the International Socialist Tendency, and a small group called Left Turn kept the IST franchise (they've since left the IST as well.) However, the ISO is considered to have a relatively high rate of "member turnover," meaning that people join up for a year or two or three, then leave the organisation. Many organisations use this as an example of the ISO's undemocratic internal practises driving away members. I don't fully buy this argument, as it could be since the ISO is fairly prominent on college campuses, this high membership turnover could be due to college students becoming radicalised for a couple years, then dropping out after they graduate. Still, there is most likely some element of truth in the claim that high membership turnover is a result of an undemocratic internal regime, especially if the ISO has kept much of its organisational norms that it inherited from the British Socialist Workers Party.

So, there are a couple of examples of how revolutionary organisations probably don't live up to the standards of revolutionary democracy either. And, given the choice between an "inconsistently revolutionary" organisation with an open democratic structure such as the Socialist Party, or a more explicitly revolutionary organisation with an unclear democratic/un-democratic structure like the Spartacist League or, to a lesser degree, the ISO, I'd readily choose the former, on the argument that it will be an easier and more productive struggle to change the former groups towards revolutionary politics than change the latter to a more open, democratic structure.

Voting Socialist in 2007/2008

2007-08-09T21:37:00.000-04:00

Now that it's early August, a good number of socialists have declared candidacies and begun campaigning. While I'm sure there are socialist that I have either failed to get information on, or haven't declared yet, as of now it looks like three socialist parties are putting up candidates around the country this year.

As of now, the best candidate I can find is standing in the Boston city council election, as an at-large candidate. Matt Geary, of Socialist Alternative, is as far as I know the first Soc. Alt. member running as a political candidate outside of the Green Party. His campaign site gives a good listing of platforms and demands, and he gives good focus on youth and students (being only 22 himself.) The only hitch is that since the Boston city council election is non-partisan, Matt will not be listed as a socialist on the ballot, nevertheless Matt does not seem to hide his politics, like some erstwhile socialists do when seeking office in the US. In addition to Socialist Alternative, Matt's campaign has been endorsed by the Boston local of the Socialist Party USA, and the Young People's Socialist League is also considering an endorsement.

The Socialist Workers Party is the second party fielding candidates this year. As usual, it seems, the SWP is fielding the most candidates out of any socialist organisation. While I do have many disagreements with the SWP's politics, not to mention their electoral sectarianism and the fact that they don't seem to publish their campaigns much outside their own newspaper, I do appreciate that they do run candidates. Their candidates are as follows: in Iowa, they're running Diana Newberry for mayor of Des Moines, and Seth Galinsky for at-large Des Moines city council. In Massachusetts, William Estrada is running for Boston at-large Boston city council. Hopefully you can vote for more than one candidate in that election, so that the socialist vote is not split. If not, I'd recommend voting for Matt Geary. In New Jersey, the SWP is putting up Sara Lobman for 29th District state senate and Edward Beck for 29th District state assembly as candidates. And in Pennsylvania, Ryan Scott is running for mayor of Pittsburgh, John Staggs is running for mayor of Philadelphia, and Osborne Hart is running for at-large Philadelphia city council.

The Socialist Party USA unfortunately didn't do so well this year as far as fielding candidates goes. We only had one: Tino Rozzo, running for 1st District New Jersey state senate, and he was challenged off the ballot by a Democratic state assembly candidate. Still, I believe Tino is contesting as a write-in candidate. The SP-USA is, however, thinking forward for 2008. Back in June, we set up a Presidential search committee to look for and encourage SP members (and other socialists) to think about running for president or vice-president on the Socialist Party ballot line. So far, thirteen candidates have declared interest; two of those candidates have only expressed interest in being the vice-presidential candidate, but the eleven others are open for either office. The names of the thirteen, plus contact information and answers to the questionnaire sent out to them (when it becomes available) can be found at the SP's election site: www.vote-socialist.org. In the interest of getting on the ballot in as many states as possible, the SP also hopes to get the endorsement from the Peace and Freedom Party of California, and the Liberty Union Party of Vermont. In addition, one or two people have expressed interest in running for congress on the SP ballot line (such as the person I mentioned in my previous post), so hopefully 2008 will be a better year for us in terms of candidates.

Again, this list isn't final. If I find out about more canididates, I'll post them here too, probably in a final post before the 2007 elections.

Socialism by Constitutional Amendment?

2007-07-23T19:44:00.000-04:00

DeLeonism is a type of socialism that could be considered uniquely American, to some degree. While based in Marxism, DeLeonism is relatively free of the influence of European or Asian Marxist thinkers (Lenin, Kautsky, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc), and to my knowledge DeLeonist parties were unable to spread outside of the English speaking world, though such organisations did exist in Canada, Great Britain, and Australia.

Anyway, the main thing that strikes me about DeLeonism is its focus on bottom-up workers democracy via the "socialist industrial union" (apparently ignoring work in existing unions?), and its almost naive insistence in a majority-based, relatively peaceful revolution via the ballot box. Theoretically, the socialist industrial union would be the primary organising method for achieving socialism; however a political party would also be used to capture the state apparatus via democratic elections. After the DeLeonist party is voted into power, the state would essentially "legalise socialism", making it possible for the socialist industrial unions to take control of the workplace and actually socialise the economy. At least, this is how I understand the idea. Still, seems kind of strange. Also, as an additional note, DeLeonists have been notoriously hostile to other camps of socialism stemming from either "reformist" traditions (the mass-based Socialist Party of America of the 1900s and 1910s) or "authoritarian" and "state capitalist" traditions (anything having to do with Leninism.) With this information in mind, it seems fairly obvious as to why most other socialists tend to consider DeLeonism "impossiblist."

But I'm getting off topic. The main point of this was to discuss the idea that's been floated by a poster on the Debsian e-mail list (for anyone interested, Debsian is an open list, but is maintained by the Debs Tendency of the Socialist Party USA). This poster, a self-described DeLeonist, has mentioned the idea of a constitutional amendment which would "allow" the workers to take over the means of production. The poster says that he intends to have this as a platform plank in the run for Congress he plans in 2008.

The idea of legislating socialism in my constitutional amendment seems somewhat silly to me, and without any other content about building workers power, winning immediate and transitional demands, etc to back it up, sounds very authoritarian and top-down. Now, I doubt this is the poster's intention, but does seem to focus primarily on this idea of a constitution amendment, while at the same time apparently dismissing the broadly-defined concept of "transitional demands" as mere metaphor.

Still, if he does run, I wish him the best for his campaign, and will most likely support him once if I can find a more detailed platform that he intends to run on (or if he decides to run on the SP platform.) The idea of a constitutional amendment to abolish capitalism doesn't sound like a bad idea in term of getting people talking, but there needs to be more concrete demands backing it up, in addition to a realisation that socialism will probably not come through the election of socialist candidates and parties to power, but rather as a more revolutionary seizure of power my popular protest and workers action from below.

Welcome to the March! (FAQ)

2007-07-22T02:22:00.000-04:00

What is this?

A blog.

Well, thanks, that was informative. Why have you created this blog?

It's an attempt to keep my political rants and rambles away from my Live Journal, and try and have that focused more strictly on more personal things, mostly to not bore my LJ friends to death with political stuff. Still, I have a feeling there will be some overlap. We shall see which gets posted to more. So this blog intends to be very political.

Okay, that makes some sense. But why call it "The Long March of the Penguins?"

There are a couple reasons for that. Partially, this project was inspired by a another blog I read, known as the Squirrel Vanguard (or Red Squirrel's Lair), a fine group of communist squirrels based in Scotland. They posted something a little while ago about a blog called The Red Wombat Hole, and referenced some sort of "revolutionary species international." And I'm just building on that, with an American section comprised of penguins.

Also, the title is dual reference to "March of the Penguins", a film about penguins narrated by Morgan Freeman, and "The Long March", which was a march undertaken by Mao Zedong and much of the Communist Party of China in 1934 in order to escape from the anti-communist Nationalists headed by Chiang Kai-Shek. Hence, both communism and penguins.

Ah, I see. So are you Maoists? And why penguins; they're not native to the US.

No, I am not a Maoist. Broadly defined, I consider myself a revolutionary democratic socialist and a Trotskyist (though I freely admit I'm somewhat under-read on the matter). As for other bloggers that may contribute here in the future, their particular brand of socialism cannot be narrowed down since they're not known yet! However, it's reasonable to say that they'll be revolutionary-oriented socialists (ie, probably not social democrats) interested in some sort of regroupment effort, which may include Maoists.

As for the penguins, you're right that they're not native to the US. I just like the animal, that's all.

So this blog will cover topics relating to socialism?

Well, yes. Specifically, I tend to focus on labour/union issues, elections and political work, some youth rights stuff, the Fourth International (in its various incarnations, though I'd consider myself in the orbit of what's commonly known as the USFI), the Middle East (in particular highlighting movements in opposition to both US/Western imperialism and political Islam), and leftist sectology and general sectariana.

Are you a member of any socialist organisation?

A couple, actually. I am (as of writing this) national Vice-Chair of the Young People's Socialist League, as well as a member of the Socialist Party USA, and an "official sympathiser" in Solidarity. My hope is that some time in the future, I won't need to list all these groups, as they'll have merged together (with YPSL coming more into its own as a proper party youth section.)

That's really it to start out, so hopefully other questions will be answered as posts commence. So, enjoy the blog, and remember: