[PEN-L:9402] social democracy ad infinitum

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sorry if the following repeats anything that Sid, Elaine,
Anders, and Louis said (not because they're wrong but because
repetition is boring). I'll limit my discussion to a small number of
points. Sorry if my missive is still too long.

Concerning my "requiem" for social democracy, Max Sawicky writes:
>>The issue isn't whether I or anyone else "likes" social democracy...
The issue is how good stuff happens and how shit happens.<<

On this, we agree.

>> The basic argument here is whether [A] positive social change
happens because grassroots agitation ... or [B] whether such agitation
bolsters or fuels the political initiatives of ... social-democrats
who hold public office, staff the public sector, work in the media,
or do advocacy.<<

That's not the way I would see what's at stake. As I've said before,
I see both [A] and [B] as true: grassroots agitation gives the
liberals, SDs, etc. backbone. The SDs, etc. are the "transmission
belt" for the expression of grassroots discontent. The _problem_
that I have been emphasizing is that the SDs etc. want to turn the
grassroots movements into transmission belts for their own programs,
for their own careers, just as Lenin wanted to turn Soviet unions
into transmission belts for his program (after the 1917 revolution).

>>... JD clarified his remark about the need for movements that
threaten the system by adding that he is not necessarily talking about
revolutionary movements. He said: "We need constant pressure from
such movements, preferably from movements that see themselves as
being in the political pressure business for the long haul rather
than accepting short-term compromises that turn out to be worthless
in the longer run." This is a little strange because the "political
pressure business" is founded on incremental gains which typically
do not establish a radical new principle but squeeze a little gelt
out of the system.<<

I don't expect a revolution in the near future. I see nothing wrong
with a little reform; as I noted, a big reform like single-payer
would be great. The key issue is that I see the impetus for reform
as coming _from below_. If the reform pressure (the "street heat" as J.
Jackson once called it) is constant and growing, this might develop
into a revolutionary pressure.

>>... JD's scenario is observationally equivalent to the social-
democratic notion, since s-d political progress typically is
associated with or exploits grassroots agitation... The bottom line
is the process to which JD alludes in no way contradicts the basic
premises of reformism in all of its varieties, from democratic
socialist to social-democratic to liberalism.<<

What you're noting is that we agree on a lot. You're missing the
point that the professional evolutionaries of the SD organizations
can become vested interests.

>>... Nor is there any categorization of the choice as between "Tony
Blair and the Unabomber, the functionary of the progressive lobby (I
guess that would be me) or the Weather Underground." Talk about red
herrings!<<

You're the one who opposed "insurrectionary" to what you advocate.

More importantly, I was NOT talking about you. It seems to me that
EPI is a very useful research & _educational_ organization. It doesn't
claim to represent anybody or try to channel grassroots discontent into
its own self-promotion. You're no lobbyist, right? (I was thinking about
Greenpeace and a lot of the other environmentalist groups, which
used to be much more of grassroots organizations and have become
national offices that focus on collecting dues and making deals.)

>>JD cited ACORN as an example of politics that "does not fit with
the safe and sane behavior so beloved by social-democrats." ACORN
may seem to fit JD's model of action at a distance, since ACORN has
no national organizational appratus; it is entirely a federation of
local groups. Not only does ACORN have no real national program or
issues, however, but it abstains from national politics.....<<

I would be the first to admit that ACORN lacks a national program,
etc. The key question is how various grass-roots movements reach
unity. Is it by putting themselves under the umbrella of some
politician, submitting to his or her agenda? or is it by forming
alliances with other grass-roots organizations, forming unity from
below, independent of the elite powers that be? That's what at
stake.

>> JD says the ruling class reacts to grassroots agitation because
it feels threatened, and says such feelings are not observable but
are consistent with his ... theory. One doesn't need theory to see
that grassroots action per se is headless and thereby not very
threatening.<<

It sure seems like the "headless" militia movement was pretty
threatening recently. (Too bad their methods, tactics, strategy, and
goals are abhorent. They do address some important working-class
fears, but it's what Engels called "the socialism of fools.")

My contention is that grass-roots movements generate their own
leaders. Even thought they may value outside advice, they don't need
people from the outside to lead them, to make decisions for them.
They should be the ones who decide which advice to take; it
shouldn't be the leaders who do so.

>>... The problem for the erstwhile critics of social-democracy is
hitching the horse of popular action (grassroots activity, strikes,
the virtuous rank-and-file, etc.) to an agency of change that they
can persuasively describe. It's either the capitalist fear (but of
what?) or some visionary wagon of the uncorrupt progressive or
revolutionary political formation.<<

I would never assume that grassroots/rank-and-file movements are
"virtous" or "uncorrupt." Traditional populism, for example, often
unites relatively progressive economics with reactionary social
attitudes. Grassroots movements are engaged in a process of
"learning by doing." The point is that they need to do the learning
themselves rather than kowtowing to some leadership that learns for
them.

If grassroots movements are going to be successful _in the long run_
they have to avoid corruption, trying to widen their organization
(along class lines, IMHO). They have to stay as independent of the
powers that be as possible, so that they don't get caught up in the
web of parliamentary intrigue.

They also have to be democratic. This means, of course, that they
might be noncorrupt and independent pushing for some goal with which
we all disagree. But I never said that "grassroots vs. elite" was
the only dimension of politics.

Fear of what? fear of significant reform (such as the undermining of the
2 party system) would evoke some reform, while fear of revolution would evoke
even more reform. The greater the fear, the greater the reform. Fear of
revolution would also evoke repression, but if the grass-roots movement were
wide and deep enough, repression wouldn't work very well.  Repression worked
against the Black Panthers, but not against the New Left as a whole.

>> The requiems for social democracy ... are really confessions of an
incapacity to engage in any politics bigger than sects.<<

yes, the joy of sects. But I am not in favor of sects, unless you define a
"sect" as any small group that disagrees with you.

>> Even for a revolutionary socialist, the problem is still how to engage
really-existing politics... In any case, actual political gains and policy
changes will happen under a messy process of collaboration mixed with
confrontation. In every case, grassroots organization and mobilization will
be an essential ingredient for insurgency.<<

I never denied the messiness of day-to-day politics. Rather, I am
arguing that the stronger the grassroots, the more likely that
day-to-day politics will create worthwhile politicians and
worthwhile political change.

(BTW, I favor "third party" politics as a way to pressure the DP to clean
up its act (and to build for something better in the future). The "third
party" of capital has been putting a heck of a lot of pressure on the DP to
clean up its act by being pro-capital. They have been highly successful.)

>>JD calls for "strategies that center on mobilizing people to push
for their own liberation, in both the short and long terms, both as
a means and an end in itself." This is a curious formulation verging
on oxymoron. A strategy implies a central command, which JD doesn't
like . . . a centralized effort to promote decentralized action.
O.K., maybe he means that assorted well-intentioned persons will
take it upon themselves to devise strategies for decentralized
groups and simply disseminate them in the public domain. How then do
these atomized, local groups confront Capital? Or maybe Jim means
the message is to think global but act local...  Where this could lead
is another puzzle...<<

Exactly: it's a strategy for people _on the left_ (the group to
which I was speaking). We shouldn't "lead" the people, tell them
what to do, or make decisions for them. Rather, we should educate,
talk to them (even argue with them), learn from them, and help them
help them organize themselves. We should focus on supporting the
movements that give SD politicians strength rather than the politicians
themselves. I am NOT against centralization. Rather, the
centralization has to be democratic, but not the "democratic
centralism" that gets pushed by politicians (meaning following
orders). The centralization has to come from below.

>>...Under the right circumstances, even Bill Clinton or Tony Blair
could be moved to do the right thing. Some would then say they
weren't as bad as thought, or they did 'it' to save capitalism, but
they would still have missed the point.<<

My point exactly: even a patrician such as FDR, who was trying to
save capitalism, "did the right thing" when the pressure from
outside the political establishment was pushing in the progressive
direction.

>>... Even as we speak, the G.O.P. and the Clinton Administration [is there
a difference?] would like to implement an adjustment of the CPI that would
reduce Federal transfer payments... But they are paralyzed by Dick Gephardt,
who is waiting to pounce on such a move and ride it into the White House. The
point is not that the calvary is on the way to rescue us, or that Gephardt is
some uniquely honest personality whose political moment is coming. It is
that an
effective engagement with the national government is an essential
part of any practical politics, if not the only part.<<

I see nothing wrong with "effective engagement with the national
government." All I'm saying is that this engagement will be more
effective in the LONG RUN if the grassroots movement exists and is
growing, becoming more organized and more socially conscious. If we
had such a movement, the choice would not be between Clinton and
Gephardt or Gingrich. Those chameleons would change their spots and
new personalities would arise. Then such politicians would be forced to
submit to control by the voters. The voters would be more than mere voters,
instead being activists.




in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
jim_devine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.