Sunday, September 4, 2016

Re: [CCDS Members] Wrap fish in it:

Gary, we DID revisit this argument in 2010. And other times too,

as I recall. Sectarianism is one thing. Abandoning your politics is

something else. So yeah, we'll be revisiting stuff. Hopefully not

forever.


PS--I know 2010 was a typo. It just gave me a chance to be a

wise-guy.


John Crawford



From: Members <members-bounces+jcrawfor=unm.edu@lists.cc-ds.org> on behalf of Gary Hicks via Members <members@lists.cc-ds.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2016 8:57 PM
To: John Case
Cc: Socialist Economics; Blogger Socialist Economics; PWW Editors; CCDS-Members
Subject: Re: [CCDS Members] Wrap fish in it:
 
Why do I have this vague hunch that we'll be revisiting this argument in 2010 if not sooner?

And what is it going to take to make me and my co- thinkers happy..... by proving me/ us wrong?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 4, 2016, at 6:00 PM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

Wrap Fish in it

Sectarianism in the CP, final chapter


John Case


Once around 1980 I tried to give away a copy of the Daily World, a successor to the Daily Worker and  a newspaper published by Communist Party, USA, to Boris (Red) Block, then General Secretary-Treasurer of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE). The paper had an article in it based on an interview I had done with Bernie Sanders after he had been elected  Mayor of Burlington, Vt as an open, independent Socialist.


Red Block replied: "I would not wrap fish in that paper!".I was taken aback, surprised, despite knowing some of the history of the UE's founders' disagreements with the Communist Party over the election campaign of Henry Wallace in 1948, and more seriously, over the Party's reaction to the  Taft-Hartley act's anti-communist and anti-union provisions.


While I did not much like the style and format of the paper myself, I nonetheless had and still have a very high regard for my early mentors and teachers in the labor movement. Almost all of these folks were either active or ex- members and friends of the Communist Party's very talented and effective brigades in the industrial organizing campaigns of the 1930's, through the World War, and including the big strike of 1946. I knew Red had been in that crowd--working-class geniuses--every one of them.. I counted, and count, him among those mentors.


In addition, I had some direct loyalty to the Party, who found me in 69-70 when I had been indicted for various SDS offenses, and helped me recover my courage, as well as other considerations, for which I am forever in their debt.


I thought Sanders agreement to be interviewed, AND some of the spicy remarks he made, made good press for the paper. Maybe reach a bigger audience. But not Red?


So asked "Why?"


"No organization or movement in American history  was ever more consumed in eating its own than the Communist Party."


Notwithstanding that for which I am forever thankful, truer words were never spoken. Red had even deeper disgust for the various left splinterings from the CP, few of which he ever took seriously.


Indeed, Red's very assertion was itself a joust in the sectarian disease, or perhaps more accurate -- diseases --  that blind the infected to what is directly in front of them: in this case evidence of a "socialism", of an "elected, and electable, working class advocate"; direct evidence of a socialism that shunned dogma and embraced the real challenges of democratic governance in a mixed economy. Bernie Sanders will not go down in history for his great ideological or scientific brilliance. He did not write a new edition of Capital (although one of his supporters, Thomas Piketty, did). He did not indulge much in punditry style polemics (a la Krugman, or Lenin). He devoted himself, more like Dolores Ibarruri of Spain, to showing by doing.


Still, neither Red, nor Gus Hall, then General Secretary of the CP, were much impressed by Bernie. For Red, Gus was an embodiment of the "disease", and anything appearing on the pages of the Daily World would stink of it. He viewed with contempt, and never forgave, the CP role in raiding left led unions in the face of the post war wave of cold war repression against the CIO under the slogan "merge with the mainstream" AFL, which he referred to as a "sewer of redbaiters", while at the same time,  the CP itself  would go underground rather than become an association [a la Browder], or merge with the Democrats."  


For Gus, the UE leadership were renegade syndicalists, or FBI agents (he frequently got around to suggesting some adversary was connected to the FBI).. Further, he was starting his own presidential campaign with Angela Davis as his VP running mate, and referred to Sanders as "a fake socialist".


Gus was wrong. Sanders' campaign was the serious campaign. He won. Gus's was fake. Wrapping it in "Marxism Leninism" did not change that. Indeed it aggravated and confirmed Gus's never faltering allegiance to the Soviet model of  socialism and its leadership of the "world communist movement". "Marxism-Leninism" might seem like something to do with Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin. But it's not anymore. And I suspect never was. The term is a "whole cloth" (a backasswards Vermont expression meaning NOT "whole", but made of  patches) fabrication by Joseph Stalin intended to transform the legacy of Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx into dogmas serving, primarily,  the state interests and reputation of the USSR, the "land of socialism". Dogma here is defined as:  the assertion of "scientific laws and truths"  unsustained by evidence.  


The Hall presidential campaign was a joke as an electoral political event, and served mainly as recruiting tour he could do with Angela Davis, with members consumed in petitioning to get the ticket on the ballot in states where the CP retained some modest strength and coherence.. As it turned out time would have been better spent defending Jimmy Carter against Reagan, or going to Vermont and learning how to run a real socialist, working class campaign for public office. Patterns similar to this persisted until the 1991 split when nearly every dogma collapsed under the weight of the final exposure of Soviet socialist model as a failed model.


The history of sectarianism in the Party can be traced back to multiple origins: from largely anarchist movements in 19th century labor radicalism; from the racial, nationality, ethnic, gender and geographic divisions in the emerging industrial working class; from the strong culture of individualism in American social development. But --  from the 1932 "Build a Soviet America" CP presidential campaign of WZ Foster AGAINST Roosevelt, and onward, the commitment to Stalin's dogma, and its emerging weaknesses -- especially in the post-war scene --  infected almost every area of political work. It can get complicated:  In the CIO organizing upheaval dogma and reality were pretty close to equal for industrial work in ALL the emerging mass manufacturing centers. Yet it also had early weaknesses, as seen in Foster's slogan. As a semi-legal movement, democratic standards of organization were seldom on the top of the CP to-do list, and factions -- open differences -- were nearly intolerable. One might excuse this in an illegal organization, but it's poisonous for participation in US democratic processes.


Yet the disease of sectarianism  prevailed against every attempt -- and there were several -- to dislodge it. Including, it appears, Sam Webb's latest attempt, as calls from the remaining narcissistic fools condemning him for "bourgeois liberalism", and "Browderism" for supporting Hillary have made their way into the CP press. That means the suicidal, stupid season is on again in the CP. LIke a curse that can't be exorcised.  Browder, Gates, Healy, the CCDS split: 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% membership losses -- no matter. Keep sucking on the "better fewer but better" tube until any remaining sustenance from the legacy of some heroic and unequalled fighters in the working class movement is completely depreciated.


No party leader was more vilified  -- eaten by his own --  than Earl Browder after 1946 when  he distanced himself from both the USSR and the "cadre-style" organizational culture (another of Stalin's betrayal of Lenin's warnings on exporting features of the Russian revolution). Yet his criticisms look pretty astute today. Except for modest growth during the 60's and 70's upheavals, the CP never recovered from  the repression of the 50's. After the 1991 CCDS split and the collapse of the USSR, Gus Hall -- a Fosterite and Stalin supporter from way back --  remained undaunted by his failures as a leader. Dogma will eventually blind you to everything if you hold on to it. Hall blamed everything on Gorbachev, on FBI agents (one of them, however, was his bagman for USSR money -- "to pay for newspaper subscriptions", he told me --- Jesus, you can't make it up!), and "petty-bourgeois forces".  


Sam Webb made a major retreat from sectarian practices, in press and messaging. But in his retirement as Chair and now resignation from the Communist Party, there are signs that there may be an insufficient leadership and membership base remaining to perform the necessary reforms. There are signs of this in many other left factions as well. Jill Stein, for example,  is running a completely high-minded and pointless, indeed reactionary, campaign from any serious working class standpoint. In states like West Virginia, where it could make a difference in which party controls the state legislature post election, the third party efforts are scab-like in their denials of the obvious consequences of their campaign.  


What are the necessary reforms? The short answer is: drop every last ounce of dogma from the official line and documents (Marxism-Leninism, Communism in the name (no one knows what that means), Democratic centralism, etc); retain the working class approach, the fight for equality, the common advance of all who labor across the world. Be a voice around which the "Our Revolution" agenda, and its millions of rising adherents, whatever its name, can find friendship, brotherhood and sisterhood, and the ability to take on governance challenges in very harsh circumstances. Develop the socialist elements of Bernie's campaign, many of which were included in the Clinton platform.



Now -- it's 2016. Sanders has repeated his lesson many times since 1980. He just did it again on a national, even international scale. He did it on straightforward working class issues. He did it by taking a class approach to every question. He did it by being SERIOUS about American politics. He shunned dogma completely. Yet he used "revolution" and "socialism" repeatedly in constructive, not rhetorical, dogmatic, or bullshit, contexts. "Revolution" because the reforms required to address inequality and austerity require a new ruling coalition to consistently implement. "Socialism" because most of the reforms involve expanding public goods, infrastructure and services, as well as changes public regulatory authority in trade, tax, financial sector, and corporate governance policy.


Sanders campaign is only part of the story. Many other movements are challenging the status quo in comparable ways, most notably the  Black Lives Matter movements and the intimate connections between equality, democracy, justice, and peace, at home, and in the world.


So, once again, a crossroads for the Left, one leading to opportunity, the other to dogma death. Sanders has, very interestingly and not unlike his approach after his first Mayoral victory in 1980, chosen NOT to personally lead an independent political formation. He set up a funding mechanism for campaigns across the country in line with the  themes of his presidential campaign. But a new political formation he did not form, either inside, or outside the Democratic party. That's up to the Left, a sober, serious Left, to figure out. If we can. He has shown how, in large measure, to make the sharp turn that our duty and class loyalty asks of those who seek the rise of the working class, and not to rise above it.

--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.
_______________________________________________
CCDS Members mailing list

CCDS website: http://www.cc-ds.org

CCDS welcomes and encourages the full participation of our members in
this list serve. It is intended for discussion of issues of concern to
our organization and its members, for building our community, for
respectfully expressing our different points of view, all in keeping
with our commitment to building a democratic and socialist society. To
those ends, free and honest discussion of issues and ideas is
encouraged. However, personal attacks on named individuals, carrying on
old vendettas, excessive posts and, especially, statements that are
racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic and/or anti-working class are not
appropriate.

Repeated failure to respect those principles of discussion
may result in exclusion from the list.
Please respect each other and our organization.

Any member of the list who objects to a posting on the list or the
behavior of a particular member should send email describing his or her
concerns to members-owner@lists.cc-ds.org

Post: Members@lists.cc-ds.org
List info and archives: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/members
To Unsubscribe, send email to:
Members-unsubscribe@lists.cc-ds.org
To Unsubscribe, change your email address, your password or your preferences:
  visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/members/hicksgary6770%40yahoo.com

You are subscribed as: hicksgary6770@yahoo.com
Posted by at No comments:

Re: [socialist-econ] Wrap fish in it:

Thanks, John, for this.  I'm not able to comment on much of this piece.  But as a real friend and very active supporter of Bernie Sanders for 13 years now I am well aware of how much he accomplished by confronting the American people with the stark facts of our common quagmire of stagnant wages, growing poverty, failing education, desecration of the earth, burgeoning bigotry absent a language or style of speaking or communicating long lost in the haze of history.

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 4, 2016, at 9:00 PM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

Socialist.


Red Block replied: "I would not wrap fish in that paper!".I

Posted by at No comments:

Re: [CCDS Members] Wrap fish in it:

Why do I have this vague hunch that we'll be revisiting this argument in 2010 if not sooner?

And what is it going to take to make me and my co- thinkers happy..... by proving me/ us wrong?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 4, 2016, at 6:00 PM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

Wrap Fish in it

Sectarianism in the CP, final chapter


John Case


Once around 1980 I tried to give away a copy of the Daily World, a successor to the Daily Worker and  a newspaper published by Communist Party, USA, to Boris (Red) Block, then General Secretary-Treasurer of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE). The paper had an article in it based on an interview I had done with Bernie Sanders after he had been elected  Mayor of Burlington, Vt as an open, independent Socialist.


Red Block replied: "I would not wrap fish in that paper!".I was taken aback, surprised, despite knowing some of the history of the UE's founders' disagreements with the Communist Party over the election campaign of Henry Wallace in 1948, and more seriously, over the Party's reaction to the  Taft-Hartley act's anti-communist and anti-union provisions.


While I did not much like the style and format of the paper myself, I nonetheless had and still have a very high regard for my early mentors and teachers in the labor movement. Almost all of these folks were either active or ex- members and friends of the Communist Party's very talented and effective brigades in the industrial organizing campaigns of the 1930's, through the World War, and including the big strike of 1946. I knew Red had been in that crowd--working-class geniuses--every one of them.. I counted, and count, him among those mentors.


In addition, I had some direct loyalty to the Party, who found me in 69-70 when I had been indicted for various SDS offenses, and helped me recover my courage, as well as other considerations, for which I am forever in their debt.


I thought Sanders agreement to be interviewed, AND some of the spicy remarks he made, made good press for the paper. Maybe reach a bigger audience. But not Red?


So asked "Why?"


"No organization or movement in American history  was ever more consumed in eating its own than the Communist Party."


Notwithstanding that for which I am forever thankful, truer words were never spoken. Red had even deeper disgust for the various left splinterings from the CP, few of which he ever took seriously.


Indeed, Red's very assertion was itself a joust in the sectarian disease, or perhaps more accurate -- diseases --  that blind the infected to what is directly in front of them: in this case evidence of a "socialism", of an "elected, and electable, working class advocate"; direct evidence of a socialism that shunned dogma and embraced the real challenges of democratic governance in a mixed economy. Bernie Sanders will not go down in history for his great ideological or scientific brilliance. He did not write a new edition of Capital (although one of his supporters, Thomas Piketty, did). He did not indulge much in punditry style polemics (a la Krugman, or Lenin). He devoted himself, more like Dolores Ibarruri of Spain, to showing by doing.


Still, neither Red, nor Gus Hall, then General Secretary of the CP, were much impressed by Bernie. For Red, Gus was an embodiment of the "disease", and anything appearing on the pages of the Daily World would stink of it. He viewed with contempt, and never forgave, the CP role in raiding left led unions in the face of the post war wave of cold war repression against the CIO under the slogan "merge with the mainstream" AFL, which he referred to as a "sewer of redbaiters", while at the same time,  the CP itself  would go underground rather than become an association [a la Browder], or merge with the Democrats."  


For Gus, the UE leadership were renegade syndicalists, or FBI agents (he frequently got around to suggesting some adversary was connected to the FBI).. Further, he was starting his own presidential campaign with Angela Davis as his VP running mate, and referred to Sanders as "a fake socialist".


Gus was wrong. Sanders' campaign was the serious campaign. He won. Gus's was fake. Wrapping it in "Marxism Leninism" did not change that. Indeed it aggravated and confirmed Gus's never faltering allegiance to the Soviet model of  socialism and its leadership of the "world communist movement". "Marxism-Leninism" might seem like something to do with Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin. But it's not anymore. And I suspect never was. The term is a "whole cloth" (a backasswards Vermont expression meaning NOT "whole", but made of  patches) fabrication by Joseph Stalin intended to transform the legacy of Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx into dogmas serving, primarily,  the state interests and reputation of the USSR, the "land of socialism". Dogma here is defined as:  the assertion of "scientific laws and truths"  unsustained by evidence.  


The Hall presidential campaign was a joke as an electoral political event, and served mainly as recruiting tour he could do with Angela Davis, with members consumed in petitioning to get the ticket on the ballot in states where the CP retained some modest strength and coherence.. As it turned out time would have been better spent defending Jimmy Carter against Reagan, or going to Vermont and learning how to run a real socialist, working class campaign for public office. Patterns similar to this persisted until the 1991 split when nearly every dogma collapsed under the weight of the final exposure of Soviet socialist model as a failed model.


The history of sectarianism in the Party can be traced back to multiple origins: from largely anarchist movements in 19th century labor radicalism; from the racial, nationality, ethnic, gender and geographic divisions in the emerging industrial working class; from the strong culture of individualism in American social development. But --  from the 1932 "Build a Soviet America" CP presidential campaign of WZ Foster AGAINST Roosevelt, and onward, the commitment to Stalin's dogma, and its emerging weaknesses -- especially in the post-war scene --  infected almost every area of political work. It can get complicated:  In the CIO organizing upheaval dogma and reality were pretty close to equal for industrial work in ALL the emerging mass manufacturing centers. Yet it also had early weaknesses, as seen in Foster's slogan. As a semi-legal movement, democratic standards of organization were seldom on the top of the CP to-do list, and factions -- open differences -- were nearly intolerable. One might excuse this in an illegal organization, but it's poisonous for participation in US democratic processes.


Yet the disease of sectarianism  prevailed against every attempt -- and there were several -- to dislodge it. Including, it appears, Sam Webb's latest attempt, as calls from the remaining narcissistic fools condemning him for "bourgeois liberalism", and "Browderism" for supporting Hillary have made their way into the CP press. That means the suicidal, stupid season is on again in the CP. LIke a curse that can't be exorcised.  Browder, Gates, Healy, the CCDS split: 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% membership losses -- no matter. Keep sucking on the "better fewer but better" tube until any remaining sustenance from the legacy of some heroic and unequalled fighters in the working class movement is completely depreciated.


No party leader was more vilified  -- eaten by his own --  than Earl Browder after 1946 when  he distanced himself from both the USSR and the "cadre-style" organizational culture (another of Stalin's betrayal of Lenin's warnings on exporting features of the Russian revolution). Yet his criticisms look pretty astute today. Except for modest growth during the 60's and 70's upheavals, the CP never recovered from  the repression of the 50's. After the 1991 CCDS split and the collapse of the USSR, Gus Hall -- a Fosterite and Stalin supporter from way back --  remained undaunted by his failures as a leader. Dogma will eventually blind you to everything if you hold on to it. Hall blamed everything on Gorbachev, on FBI agents (one of them, however, was his bagman for USSR money -- "to pay for newspaper subscriptions", he told me --- Jesus, you can't make it up!), and "petty-bourgeois forces".  


Sam Webb made a major retreat from sectarian practices, in press and messaging. But in his retirement as Chair and now resignation from the Communist Party, there are signs that there may be an insufficient leadership and membership base remaining to perform the necessary reforms. There are signs of this in many other left factions as well. Jill Stein, for example,  is running a completely high-minded and pointless, indeed reactionary, campaign from any serious working class standpoint. In states like West Virginia, where it could make a difference in which party controls the state legislature post election, the third party efforts are scab-like in their denials of the obvious consequences of their campaign.  


What are the necessary reforms? The short answer is: drop every last ounce of dogma from the official line and documents (Marxism-Leninism, Communism in the name (no one knows what that means), Democratic centralism, etc); retain the working class approach, the fight for equality, the common advance of all who labor across the world. Be a voice around which the "Our Revolution" agenda, and its millions of rising adherents, whatever its name, can find friendship, brotherhood and sisterhood, and the ability to take on governance challenges in very harsh circumstances. Develop the socialist elements of Bernie's campaign, many of which were included in the Clinton platform.



Now -- it's 2016. Sanders has repeated his lesson many times since 1980. He just did it again on a national, even international scale. He did it on straightforward working class issues. He did it by taking a class approach to every question. He did it by being SERIOUS about American politics. He shunned dogma completely. Yet he used "revolution" and "socialism" repeatedly in constructive, not rhetorical, dogmatic, or bullshit, contexts. "Revolution" because the reforms required to address inequality and austerity require a new ruling coalition to consistently implement. "Socialism" because most of the reforms involve expanding public goods, infrastructure and services, as well as changes public regulatory authority in trade, tax, financial sector, and corporate governance policy.


Sanders campaign is only part of the story. Many other movements are challenging the status quo in comparable ways, most notably the  Black Lives Matter movements and the intimate connections between equality, democracy, justice, and peace, at home, and in the world.


So, once again, a crossroads for the Left, one leading to opportunity, the other to dogma death. Sanders has, very interestingly and not unlike his approach after his first Mayoral victory in 1980, chosen NOT to personally lead an independent political formation. He set up a funding mechanism for campaigns across the country in line with the  themes of his presidential campaign. But a new political formation he did not form, either inside, or outside the Democratic party. That's up to the Left, a sober, serious Left, to figure out. If we can. He has shown how, in large measure, to make the sharp turn that our duty and class loyalty asks of those who seek the rise of the working class, and not to rise above it.



--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.
_______________________________________________
CCDS Members mailing list

CCDS website: http://www.cc-ds.org

CCDS welcomes and encourages the full participation of our members in
this list serve. It is intended for discussion of issues of concern to
our organization and its members, for building our community, for
respectfully expressing our different points of view, all in keeping
with our commitment to building a democratic and socialist society. To
those ends, free and honest discussion of issues and ideas is
encouraged. However, personal attacks on named individuals, carrying on
old vendettas, excessive posts and, especially, statements that are
racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic and/or anti-working class are not
appropriate.

Repeated failure to respect those principles of discussion
may result in exclusion from the list.
Please respect each other and our organization.

Any member of the list who objects to a posting on the list or the
behavior of a particular member should send email describing his or her
concerns to members-owner@lists.cc-ds.org

Post: Members@lists.cc-ds.org
List info and archives: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/members
To Unsubscribe, send email to:
Members-unsubscribe@lists.cc-ds.org
To Unsubscribe, change your email address, your password or your preferences:
  visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/members/hicksgary6770%40yahoo.com

You are subscribed as: hicksgary6770@yahoo.com
Posted by at No comments:

Wrap fish in it:

Wrap Fish in it

Sectarianism in the CP, final chapter


John Case


Once around 1980 I tried to give away a copy of the Daily World, a successor to the Daily Worker and  a newspaper published by Communist Party, USA, to Boris (Red) Block, then General Secretary-Treasurer of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE). The paper had an article in it based on an interview I had done with Bernie Sanders after he had been elected  Mayor of Burlington, Vt as an open, independent Socialist.


Red Block replied: "I would not wrap fish in that paper!".I was taken aback, surprised, despite knowing some of the history of the UE's founders' disagreements with the Communist Party over the election campaign of Henry Wallace in 1948, and more seriously, over the Party's reaction to the  Taft-Hartley act's anti-communist and anti-union provisions.


While I did not much like the style and format of the paper myself, I nonetheless had and still have a very high regard for my early mentors and teachers in the labor movement. Almost all of these folks were either active or ex- members and friends of the Communist Party's very talented and effective brigades in the industrial organizing campaigns of the 1930's, through the World War, and including the big strike of 1946. I knew Red had been in that crowd--working-class geniuses--every one of them.. I counted, and count, him among those mentors.


In addition, I had some direct loyalty to the Party, who found me in 69-70 when I had been indicted for various SDS offenses, and helped me recover my courage, as well as other considerations, for which I am forever in their debt.


I thought Sanders agreement to be interviewed, AND some of the spicy remarks he made, made good press for the paper. Maybe reach a bigger audience. But not Red?


So asked "Why?"


"No organization or movement in American history  was ever more consumed in eating its own than the Communist Party."


Notwithstanding that for which I am forever thankful, truer words were never spoken. Red had even deeper disgust for the various left splinterings from the CP, few of which he ever took seriously.


Indeed, Red's very assertion was itself a joust in the sectarian disease, or perhaps more accurate -- diseases --  that blind the infected to what is directly in front of them: in this case evidence of a "socialism", of an "elected, and electable, working class advocate"; direct evidence of a socialism that shunned dogma and embraced the real challenges of democratic governance in a mixed economy. Bernie Sanders will not go down in history for his great ideological or scientific brilliance. He did not write a new edition of Capital (although one of his supporters, Thomas Piketty, did). He did not indulge much in punditry style polemics (a la Krugman, or Lenin). He devoted himself, more like Dolores Ibarruri of Spain, to showing by doing.


Still, neither Red, nor Gus Hall, then General Secretary of the CP, were much impressed by Bernie. For Red, Gus was an embodiment of the "disease", and anything appearing on the pages of the Daily World would stink of it. He viewed with contempt, and never forgave, the CP role in raiding left led unions in the face of the post war wave of cold war repression against the CIO under the slogan "merge with the mainstream" AFL, which he referred to as a "sewer of redbaiters", while at the same time,  the CP itself  would go underground rather than become an association [a la Browder], or merge with the Democrats."  


For Gus, the UE leadership were renegade syndicalists, or FBI agents (he frequently got around to suggesting some adversary was connected to the FBI).. Further, he was starting his own presidential campaign with Angela Davis as his VP running mate, and referred to Sanders as "a fake socialist".


Gus was wrong. Sanders' campaign was the serious campaign. He won. Gus's was fake. Wrapping it in "Marxism Leninism" did not change that. Indeed it aggravated and confirmed Gus's never faltering allegiance to the Soviet model of  socialism and its leadership of the "world communist movement". "Marxism-Leninism" might seem like something to do with Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin. But it's not anymore. And I suspect never was. The term is a "whole cloth" (a backasswards Vermont expression meaning NOT "whole", but made of  patches) fabrication by Joseph Stalin intended to transform the legacy of Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx into dogmas serving, primarily,  the state interests and reputation of the USSR, the "land of socialism". Dogma here is defined as:  the assertion of "scientific laws and truths"  unsustained by evidence.  


The Hall presidential campaign was a joke as an electoral political event, and served mainly as recruiting tour he could do with Angela Davis, with members consumed in petitioning to get the ticket on the ballot in states where the CP retained some modest strength and coherence.. As it turned out time would have been better spent defending Jimmy Carter against Reagan, or going to Vermont and learning how to run a real socialist, working class campaign for public office. Patterns similar to this persisted until the 1991 split when nearly every dogma collapsed under the weight of the final exposure of Soviet socialist model as a failed model.


The history of sectarianism in the Party can be traced back to multiple origins: from largely anarchist movements in 19th century labor radicalism; from the racial, nationality, ethnic, gender and geographic divisions in the emerging industrial working class; from the strong culture of individualism in American social development. But --  from the 1932 "Build a Soviet America" CP presidential campaign of WZ Foster AGAINST Roosevelt, and onward, the commitment to Stalin's dogma, and its emerging weaknesses -- especially in the post-war scene --  infected almost every area of political work. It can get complicated:  In the CIO organizing upheaval dogma and reality were pretty close to equal for industrial work in ALL the emerging mass manufacturing centers. Yet it also had early weaknesses, as seen in Foster's slogan. As a semi-legal movement, democratic standards of organization were seldom on the top of the CP to-do list, and factions -- open differences -- were nearly intolerable. One might excuse this in an illegal organization, but it's poisonous for participation in US democratic processes.


Yet the disease of sectarianism  prevailed against every attempt -- and there were several -- to dislodge it. Including, it appears, Sam Webb's latest attempt, as calls from the remaining narcissistic fools condemning him for "bourgeois liberalism", and "Browderism" for supporting Hillary have made their way into the CP press. That means the suicidal, stupid season is on again in the CP. LIke a curse that can't be exorcised.  Browder, Gates, Healy, the CCDS split: 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% membership losses -- no matter. Keep sucking on the "better fewer but better" tube until any remaining sustenance from the legacy of some heroic and unequalled fighters in the working class movement is completely depreciated.


No party leader was more vilified  -- eaten by his own --  than Earl Browder after 1946 when  he distanced himself from both the USSR and the "cadre-style" organizational culture (another of Stalin's betrayal of Lenin's warnings on exporting features of the Russian revolution). Yet his criticisms look pretty astute today. Except for modest growth during the 60's and 70's upheavals, the CP never recovered from  the repression of the 50's. After the 1991 CCDS split and the collapse of the USSR, Gus Hall -- a Fosterite and Stalin supporter from way back --  remained undaunted by his failures as a leader. Dogma will eventually blind you to everything if you hold on to it. Hall blamed everything on Gorbachev, on FBI agents (one of them, however, was his bagman for USSR money -- "to pay for newspaper subscriptions", he told me --- Jesus, you can't make it up!), and "petty-bourgeois forces".  


Sam Webb made a major retreat from sectarian practices, in press and messaging. But in his retirement as Chair and now resignation from the Communist Party, there are signs that there may be an insufficient leadership and membership base remaining to perform the necessary reforms. There are signs of this in many other left factions as well. Jill Stein, for example,  is running a completely high-minded and pointless, indeed reactionary, campaign from any serious working class standpoint. In states like West Virginia, where it could make a difference in which party controls the state legislature post election, the third party efforts are scab-like in their denials of the obvious consequences of their campaign.  


What are the necessary reforms? The short answer is: drop every last ounce of dogma from the official line and documents (Marxism-Leninism, Communism in the name (no one knows what that means), Democratic centralism, etc); retain the working class approach, the fight for equality, the common advance of all who labor across the world. Be a voice around which the "Our Revolution" agenda, and its millions of rising adherents, whatever its name, can find friendship, brotherhood and sisterhood, and the ability to take on governance challenges in very harsh circumstances. Develop the socialist elements of Bernie's campaign, many of which were included in the Clinton platform.



Now -- it's 2016. Sanders has repeated his lesson many times since 1980. He just did it again on a national, even international scale. He did it on straightforward working class issues. He did it by taking a class approach to every question. He did it by being SERIOUS about American politics. He shunned dogma completely. Yet he used "revolution" and "socialism" repeatedly in constructive, not rhetorical, dogmatic, or bullshit, contexts. "Revolution" because the reforms required to address inequality and austerity require a new ruling coalition to consistently implement. "Socialism" because most of the reforms involve expanding public goods, infrastructure and services, as well as changes public regulatory authority in trade, tax, financial sector, and corporate governance policy.


Sanders campaign is only part of the story. Many other movements are challenging the status quo in comparable ways, most notably the  Black Lives Matter movements and the intimate connections between equality, democracy, justice, and peace, at home, and in the world.


So, once again, a crossroads for the Left, one leading to opportunity, the other to dogma death. Sanders has, very interestingly and not unlike his approach after his first Mayoral victory in 1980, chosen NOT to personally lead an independent political formation. He set up a funding mechanism for campaigns across the country in line with the  themes of his presidential campaign. But a new political formation he did not form, either inside, or outside the Democratic party. That's up to the Left, a sober, serious Left, to figure out. If we can. He has shown how, in large measure, to make the sharp turn that our duty and class loyalty asks of those who seek the rise of the working class, and not to rise above it.



--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.
Posted by at No comments:

Re: [CCDS Members] [socialist-econ] Sam Webb doesn’t get Robert Reich [feedly]

Comrades

It is one sorry day for our movement when purported socialists and communists......step on each other's toes, cut in line cafeteria-style .....to be the first comrade on their block to be the most effective apologist for, activist on behalf of..... the capitalist class. And they volunteer their political, theoretical, ideological and organizational services to this end !!!  The ever-genocidal and ecocidal capitalist class doesn't even have to give out hush puppies, let alone cash bribes. 

It is neither old fashioned, nor infantile, nor ultra leftist to insist, like Lenin of 100 years ago, to assert that such people need to return to the marsh of Mensheviks and Liquidationism..... and clear the path for Bolshevik and class struggle comrades. And thanks in advance!!!

Gary Hicks

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 4, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Norma Harrison <normaha@pacbell.net> wrote:

Was the BClinton win a victory?

(will it be any kind of a win when-if Hillary wins in Nov – all the invading by treaty and bombs…?)

Norma

 

From: Members [mailto:members-bounces+normaha=pacbell.net@lists.cc-ds.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Acuff Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2016 5:19 PM To: John Case jcase4218@gmail.com  Cc: Socialist Economics <socialist-economics@googlegroups.com>; Blogger Socialist Economics <jcase4218.lightanddark@blogger.com>; PWW Editors <editors@peoplesworld.org>; CCDS-Members members@lists.cc-ds.org Subject: Re: [CCDS Members] [socialist-econ] Sam Webb doesn't get Robert Reich [feedly]

 

Thanks, John, for this clear and strong defense of our friend, Sam.  We have an election to win in November.  It is not a referendum.  The other candidate on the ballot is the hero of neo-Nazis and unrepentant Confederates, sexists, bigots of all kind, Donald Trump.  The stakes for this country and the world could not be more high--either moving forward or turning or turning the governance of the nation over to those seemingly solely motivated by hatred of the other and love of a past in their mind dominated by slavery and genocide.

I strongly supported My friend Bernie and will do it again if ever given the chance.  But Bernie is not on the ballot.  I supported Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1988 and Tom Harkin in 1992, but they weren't on the general election ballots.  I worked my ass off for Dukakis and Bill Clinton.  And I'm working hard for Hillary.

Elections are won with passion, will, strategy and money.  

Elections are not won with dithering.  I salute my friends, John and Sam, for knowing how to win and refusing to act as if they live in a world and universe that doesn't exist.


Sent from my iPad


On Sep 3, 2016, at 8:34 AM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

I get Robert Reich -- a social democrat (that's not a negative in this context) with a big ego and a longstanding grievance against both Clintons for being fired as Labor Secretary by Bill for not being a team player. He does not get invited to Clinton parties or events anymore. If I read the news right, he was not exactly a team player with Bernie either: first he says (on the Clinton endorsement) he will respect whatever Sanders decides -- then -- when Sanders endorses Clinton, Reich publicly criticizes him for it! Typical crappy team player. If you hang your hat on Reich, you will be disappointed.

Hillary was to the left of her husband from the beginning. ON health care, on poverty, on women, on children. She is a politician who listens, and changes her mind based on evidence: something some of her critics could take some fucking time to learn. She is, like Bill, and like Obama, also a politician focused on winning, not posturing for the narcissistic mirrors.

I did not agree with Sam Webb's skeptical, critical  stance on the Sanders campaign. But then I know Bernie Sanders and his history well. I KNOW he is not a splitter. But most out side northern New England did not know him well.

Between the working class and progressive .supporters of Sanders, and the working class and progressive supporters of Clinton, there is a majority, if it can be  organized and united, ready to reverse austerity, inequality, racism, and hold back from the slippery slopes that can lead to world war. 

Any effort that seeks to divide this unity -- such as the reprehensible, dogma drenched, posts of Rick Nagin -- should be  sanctioned.

Reich is a friend, even if unreliable

Sam is a much better friend.

 

John Case

 

 

Sam Webb doesn't get Robert Reich
http://peoplesworld.org/sam-webb-doesn-t-get-robert-reich/

 

As supporters of Hillary Clinton, we disagree with some of the assertions and implications in Sam Webb's opinion piece, Robert Reich on Hillary Clinton: too smug, too sexist, which is Sam's critique of a Robert Reich blog. For example, he says that "Hillary-hating ... is nearly a national pastime" and implies that Hillary Clinton herself did not play a key role in the Clinton Administration.

If hating Hillary were truly a "national pastime," we supporters might get discouraged. However, we are bolstered by opinion polls from around the country that show Hillary is, for the most part, ahead of Donald Trump.

In taking issue with Reich, Sam implies that Hillary was less than an equal partner in the Clinton Administration with statements such as "Reich ... assumes that what Bill did, Hillary will do. In other words, she has to not only pay for the sins of her husband, but, as a dutiful woman and wife, she is programmed to repeat them."

By implying that Hillary, herself, separately and as an individual did not play a leading, responsible role in the Clinton Administration Sam is actually discounting one of the most important items on her resume and one of the reasons we believe she is so well prepared to be President.

Reich worked in the Clinton Administration. He saw firsthand that what "Bill did" Hillary in fact, "did," too.

No one we know says Hillary Clinton "has to pay for the sins of her husband." She, herself, in all her speeches takes full responsibility for the central role she played in Bill's Administration.

To deny that she was an equal partner is to deny her credit for efforts such as trying to establish universal health care.

Is Sam trying to discourage people from supporting Clinton? We don't think so. We think he is shadow boxing a specter he calls "some" on the left and that he did not think through the possible impact of what he wrote.

As an example, he states "Reich (and some others on the left) ... are far more likely to critique - at times blast - [Clinton]. I guess they think that to do otherwise might leave them open to criticism from others on the left, thereby tarnishing what is most precious to them - their progressive and radical credentials."

Sam presents no evidence for "guessing" that Robert Reich does not write what he really thinks or that Reich is pandering to the left. For that matter, Sam does not say who exactly are the "some others on the left."

Without evidence for Sam's claim, there is no way to evaluate it. However we doubt that Reich feels a need to protect his "credentials," radical or otherwise. Moreover, as a nationally known liberal thinker he has never, to our knowledge, identified himself as a "radical."

Along with mislabeling Reich as a "radical," Sam misrepresents him. Contrary to Sam's assertion, nowhere in his piece does Reich lock "Hillary into a tightly constructed political category from which he allows her no space to escape."

On the contrary, Reich is giving Hillary advice he thinks she needs to win. He obviously thinks Hillary is flexible enough to make changes. Furthermore, in other pieces he's written, Reich has fully described how the Clinton campaign has changed in ideas and tone.

Sam seems to take the approach that the only good Hillary supporter is a Hillary-right-or-wrong supporter. But, to paraphrase one of the best known quotes in American history, Reich believes in "Hillary right or wrong. If right, to keep her right, if wrong to make her right."

Furthermore, Sam uses ad hominin attacks against Reich, accusing him of being "sexist" and "smug." Those characterizations are not really descriptive, we think, of the arguments made by Reich.

Sam also says "Reich brings no evidence to bear on his claim that Hillary is tacking to the right."

Perhaps Reich assumes his readers already have some "evidence" of that. He might be thinking that they see the newspapers or listen to the news on TV or radio or see it on the Internet. In recent weeks, among other things, Hillary has asked Henry Kissinger and George W. Bush's former Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, for their endorsements.

The media has also widely reported that Hillary is courting "moderate" voters.

Is there something "wrong with this?" Sam asks.

Reich's position is that formulating a strategy to reach "moderate" voters is counter-productive because, Reich says, "There are no longer 'moderates.' There's no longer a 'center.' There's authoritarian populism (Trump) or democratic populism (which had been Bernie's 'political revolution,' and is now up for grabs)."

Reich presents evidence to back up his claim. Even though one might question Reich's conclusion, as supporters of Hillary, we feel we must carefully consider those conclusions. After all, Reich is a leading Hillary supporter and an experienced political campaigner. His opinion matters when we are considering tactics that will be useful in the fight to get her elected.

Reich says in his piece that he's worried that Hillary Clinton does not get that the "biggest divide in American politics is no longer between the right and the left."

Sam assures us that "The biggest divide - and Hillary clearly understands this well - has never been between the right and left." However, he does not tell us how he knows what Hillary does or does not understand.

Reich, on the other hand, is abundantly qualified for describing the ideas and attitudes of both Clintons. He knew them both during their college years and has remained friends ever since.

He says, as we stated above, that he's worried that Hillary doesn't get that the "biggest divide in American politics is ... between the anti-establishment and the establishment."

Sam agrees, "the establishment/anti-establishment idea has increasingly fractured U.S. politics and shapes popular thinking."

Therefore, one would assume that Sam would urge Clinton to zero in on this "popular thinking." That's what candidates do to win elections.

But Sam strongly implies that instead of doing what needs to be done to win, Hillary is somehow adhering to Sam's personal belief that "the main political division ... is between right-wing extremism on the one side and a broad, diverse, multi-class people's movement on the other."

Sam seems to think there's a difference between what he calls a "people's movement" and what Reich calls a movement for "democratic populism."

We think that the difference between the two formulations is mainly a rhetorical one, not a real one. But in election campaigns, language means a lot.

Reich's formulation may well help lead Hillary to victory in November. On the other hand, Sam's could lessen enthusiasm for Hillary among some former Bernie Sanders supporters and other progressives. In a close election this important that could mean disaster.

Photo: AP
 -- via my feedly newsfeed

_______________________________________________
CCDS Members mailing list

CCDS website: http://www.cc-ds.org

CCDS welcomes and encourages the full participation of our members in
this list serve. It is intended for discussion of issues of concern to
our organization and its members, for building our community, for
respectfully expressing our different points of view, all in keeping
with our commitment to building a democratic and socialist society. To
those ends, free and honest discussion of issues and ideas is
encouraged. However, personal attacks on named individuals, carrying on
old vendettas, excessive posts and, especially, statements that are
racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic and/or anti-working class are not
appropriate.

Repeated failure to respect those principles of discussion
may result in exclusion from the list.
Please respect each other and our organization.

Any member of the list who objects to a posting on the list or the
behavior of a particular member should send email describing his or her
concerns to members-owner@lists.cc-ds.org

Post: Members@lists.cc-ds.org
List info and archives: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/members
To Unsubscribe, send email to:
Members-unsubscribe@lists.cc-ds.org
To Unsubscribe, change your email address, your password or your preferences:
  visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/members/hicksgary6770%40yahoo.com

You are subscribed as: hicksgary6770@yahoo.com
Posted by at No comments:

RE: [CCDS Members] [socialist-econ] Sam Webb doesn’t get Robert Reich [feedly]

Was the BClinton win a victory?

(will it be any kind of a win when-if Hillary wins in Nov – all the invading by treaty and bombs…?)

Norma

 

From: Members [mailto:members-bounces+normaha=pacbell.net@lists.cc-ds.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Acuff Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2016 5:19 PM To: John Case jcase4218@gmail.com  Cc: Socialist Economics <socialist-economics@googlegroups.com>; Blogger Socialist Economics <jcase4218.lightanddark@blogger.com>; PWW Editors <editors@peoplesworld.org>; CCDS-Members members@lists.cc-ds.org Subject: Re: [CCDS Members] [socialist-econ] Sam Webb doesn't get Robert Reich [feedly]

 

Thanks, John, for this clear and strong defense of our friend, Sam.  We have an election to win in November.  It is not a referendum.  The other candidate on the ballot is the hero of neo-Nazis and unrepentant Confederates, sexists, bigots of all kind, Donald Trump.  The stakes for this country and the world could not be more high--either moving forward or turning or turning the governance of the nation over to those seemingly solely motivated by hatred of the other and love of a past in their mind dominated by slavery and genocide.

I strongly supported My friend Bernie and will do it again if ever given the chance.  But Bernie is not on the ballot.  I supported Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1988 and Tom Harkin in 1992, but they weren't on the general election ballots.  I worked my ass off for Dukakis and Bill Clinton.  And I'm working hard for Hillary.

Elections are won with passion, will, strategy and money.  

Elections are not won with dithering.  I salute my friends, John and Sam, for knowing how to win and refusing to act as if they live in a world and universe that doesn't exist.


Sent from my iPad


On Sep 3, 2016, at 8:34 AM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

I get Robert Reich -- a social democrat (that's not a negative in this context) with a big ego and a longstanding grievance against both Clintons for being fired as Labor Secretary by Bill for not being a team player. He does not get invited to Clinton parties or events anymore. If I read the news right, he was not exactly a team player with Bernie either: first he says (on the Clinton endorsement) he will respect whatever Sanders decides -- then -- when Sanders endorses Clinton, Reich publicly criticizes him for it! Typical crappy team player. If you hang your hat on Reich, you will be disappointed.

Hillary was to the left of her husband from the beginning. ON health care, on poverty, on women, on children. She is a politician who listens, and changes her mind based on evidence: something some of her critics could take some fucking time to learn. She is, like Bill, and like Obama, also a politician focused on winning, not posturing for the narcissistic mirrors.

I did not agree with Sam Webb's skeptical, critical  stance on the Sanders campaign. But then I know Bernie Sanders and his history well. I KNOW he is not a splitter. But most out side northern New England did not know him well.

Between the working class and progressive .supporters of Sanders, and the working class and progressive supporters of Clinton, there is a majority, if it can be  organized and united, ready to reverse austerity, inequality, racism, and hold back from the slippery slopes that can lead to world war. 

Any effort that seeks to divide this unity -- such as the reprehensible, dogma drenched, posts of Rick Nagin -- should be  sanctioned.

Reich is a friend, even if unreliable

Sam is a much better friend.

 

John Case

 

 

Sam Webb doesn't get Robert Reich
http://peoplesworld.org/sam-webb-doesn-t-get-robert-reich/

 

As supporters of Hillary Clinton, we disagree with some of the assertions and implications in Sam Webb's opinion piece, Robert Reich on Hillary Clinton: too smug, too sexist, which is Sam's critique of a Robert Reich blog. For example, he says that "Hillary-hating ... is nearly a national pastime" and implies that Hillary Clinton herself did not play a key role in the Clinton Administration.

If hating Hillary were truly a "national pastime," we supporters might get discouraged. However, we are bolstered by opinion polls from around the country that show Hillary is, for the most part, ahead of Donald Trump.

In taking issue with Reich, Sam implies that Hillary was less than an equal partner in the Clinton Administration with statements such as "Reich ... assumes that what Bill did, Hillary will do. In other words, she has to not only pay for the sins of her husband, but, as a dutiful woman and wife, she is programmed to repeat them."

By implying that Hillary, herself, separately and as an individual did not play a leading, responsible role in the Clinton Administration Sam is actually discounting one of the most important items on her resume and one of the reasons we believe she is so well prepared to be President.

Reich worked in the Clinton Administration. He saw firsthand that what "Bill did" Hillary in fact, "did," too.

No one we know says Hillary Clinton "has to pay for the sins of her husband." She, herself, in all her speeches takes full responsibility for the central role she played in Bill's Administration.

To deny that she was an equal partner is to deny her credit for efforts such as trying to establish universal health care.

Is Sam trying to discourage people from supporting Clinton? We don't think so. We think he is shadow boxing a specter he calls "some" on the left and that he did not think through the possible impact of what he wrote.

As an example, he states "Reich (and some others on the left) ... are far more likely to critique - at times blast - [Clinton]. I guess they think that to do otherwise might leave them open to criticism from others on the left, thereby tarnishing what is most precious to them - their progressive and radical credentials."

Sam presents no evidence for "guessing" that Robert Reich does not write what he really thinks or that Reich is pandering to the left. For that matter, Sam does not say who exactly are the "some others on the left."

Without evidence for Sam's claim, there is no way to evaluate it. However we doubt that Reich feels a need to protect his "credentials," radical or otherwise. Moreover, as a nationally known liberal thinker he has never, to our knowledge, identified himself as a "radical."

Along with mislabeling Reich as a "radical," Sam misrepresents him. Contrary to Sam's assertion, nowhere in his piece does Reich lock "Hillary into a tightly constructed political category from which he allows her no space to escape."

On the contrary, Reich is giving Hillary advice he thinks she needs to win. He obviously thinks Hillary is flexible enough to make changes. Furthermore, in other pieces he's written, Reich has fully described how the Clinton campaign has changed in ideas and tone.

Sam seems to take the approach that the only good Hillary supporter is a Hillary-right-or-wrong supporter. But, to paraphrase one of the best known quotes in American history, Reich believes in "Hillary right or wrong. If right, to keep her right, if wrong to make her right."

Furthermore, Sam uses ad hominin attacks against Reich, accusing him of being "sexist" and "smug." Those characterizations are not really descriptive, we think, of the arguments made by Reich.

Sam also says "Reich brings no evidence to bear on his claim that Hillary is tacking to the right."

Perhaps Reich assumes his readers already have some "evidence" of that. He might be thinking that they see the newspapers or listen to the news on TV or radio or see it on the Internet. In recent weeks, among other things, Hillary has asked Henry Kissinger and George W. Bush's former Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, for their endorsements.

The media has also widely reported that Hillary is courting "moderate" voters.

Is there something "wrong with this?" Sam asks.

Reich's position is that formulating a strategy to reach "moderate" voters is counter-productive because, Reich says, "There are no longer 'moderates.' There's no longer a 'center.' There's authoritarian populism (Trump) or democratic populism (which had been Bernie's 'political revolution,' and is now up for grabs)."

Reich presents evidence to back up his claim. Even though one might question Reich's conclusion, as supporters of Hillary, we feel we must carefully consider those conclusions. After all, Reich is a leading Hillary supporter and an experienced political campaigner. His opinion matters when we are considering tactics that will be useful in the fight to get her elected.

Reich says in his piece that he's worried that Hillary Clinton does not get that the "biggest divide in American politics is no longer between the right and the left."

Sam assures us that "The biggest divide - and Hillary clearly understands this well - has never been between the right and left." However, he does not tell us how he knows what Hillary does or does not understand.

Reich, on the other hand, is abundantly qualified for describing the ideas and attitudes of both Clintons. He knew them both during their college years and has remained friends ever since.

He says, as we stated above, that he's worried that Hillary doesn't get that the "biggest divide in American politics is ... between the anti-establishment and the establishment."

Sam agrees, "the establishment/anti-establishment idea has increasingly fractured U.S. politics and shapes popular thinking."

Therefore, one would assume that Sam would urge Clinton to zero in on this "popular thinking." That's what candidates do to win elections.

But Sam strongly implies that instead of doing what needs to be done to win, Hillary is somehow adhering to Sam's personal belief that "the main political division ... is between right-wing extremism on the one side and a broad, diverse, multi-class people's movement on the other."

Sam seems to think there's a difference between what he calls a "people's movement" and what Reich calls a movement for "democratic populism."

We think that the difference between the two formulations is mainly a rhetorical one, not a real one. But in election campaigns, language means a lot.

Reich's formulation may well help lead Hillary to victory in November. On the other hand, Sam's could lessen enthusiasm for Hillary among some former Bernie Sanders supporters and other progressives. In a close election this important that could mean disaster.

Photo: AP
 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Posted by at No comments:

Union decline lowers wages of nonunion workers: The overlooked reason why wages are stuck and inequality is growing

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)