Anti-Fascism in Suburban NJ

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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.