The Democratic Party: A Critical History (Workshop Speech at Northeast Socialist Conference, 2009)

A talk on the Democratic Party at a socialist conference, almost a year after Bush and the Republican party was buried in the 2008 election.

Remember what it felt like to watch John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Right-wing Christian-Conservatives—the people that still aren’t sure that they believe in science—go down in flames.

Remember what it was like on election night to be in the streets with hundreds or thousands of people cheering for Obama's victory—the first Black President in a country built on slavery.

To working people, Obama and the Democratic Party—after eight long years of Right-wing Republican rule—represented “Hope for change”. The change he was talking about was change that benefits working people. After all, we had a lot of change under the Bush regime, right? We had lots of change that benefited the corporations, big oil, the Enron's, the Halliburtons. Obama spoke of change for working people. His speeches referenced, and used the language of the 60's—a time of immense change—change for civil rights, against the Vietnam War, for Women's rights and Gay liberation.

I don't know about you. But this sounds pretty good to me. That period of time represents “change I can believe in”. It represents change we need today. People voted for Obama because they want to see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end. They want to see abortion rights defended, made safe, legal and accessible. And it is clearer than ever—after the National March for Equality of 200,000 in DC—that people voted for Obama because they want the right to marry their same-sex partners. Just like the civil rights movement of the 60's fought for equality under the law, LGBT people are ready to fight for the same today.

I have to add that people voted for Obama because Wall Street has dragged us into an economic crisis on scale with the Great Depression. And with this economic crisis shedding jobs—as it continues to do at an astounding rate—it was, and continues to be clear that we need a radical change to our health care system.


Liberalism in power

We've now had almost a year since the Democrats took the White House—and remember that they had already taken both the House and the Senate in 2006. We've had a year for these hopes to materialize, at least some of them. And honestly, I think we have to add a new ingredient to describe the mood of workers in addition to “hope”. We have to add a pinch—or maybe a cup or two or three cups of frustration—maybe even anger.

I don't know about you, but I honestly thought that Obama would have at the very least closed down Guantanamo. I thought by now he would have followed through on his promises to repeal “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” (After all, even Colin Powell supports its repeal). I thought he would have put up at least some kind of fight for substantial health care reform, or the Public Option. I surely didn't expect him to let the Right and the Tea Baggers—the same people we all voted to the dustbin of history—define the terms of the health care debate.

So in my talk, I want to talk about change. What makes change actually happen to benefit working people? And what is the relationship of the Democratic Party to this change. I also want to try and explain Obama's contradictions—the gap between what he promises and what he is actually doing. And I want to show that Marxism—that is, looking at Obama historically and with a class analysis is the best way to understand the Democratic Party and its relationship to “change we can believe in”.


Ruling class from birth

Having a “class analysis” of the Democratic Party means taking a step back and thinking about what class makes up the Democratic Party and what class interests it represents. Does it represent the interests of everyday working people—people that make ends-meet by going to work for a wage? Or does it represent the ruling class—the class that owns—that owns the factories, the corporations, the stores—that makes its wealth by exploiting workers.

This is an important question—especially in regards to the Democratic Party—because most people hold the view that the Republican Party is the party of Corporate America, and the Democratic Party is the party that represents the interests of working people.

The real situation though is much different. Viewed historically in fact, the Democratic Party from its very beginning was far from a party of the people.

During and after the civil war, the Democratic Party was actually the party of the Confederacy. They represented the Southern business interests of slavery and later segregation. They were the party of the Jim Crow South, while the Republicans at that time were supported by the Northern industrialists (Remember Lincoln, he was a Republican). The Democrats that did live in the North were not the kind of party we would want to associate, to say the least. Nicknamed “Copperheads”, the made riots that involved lynched ordinary Blacks.

Both major parties involved alliances between different segments of the ruling class. But the ruling class is but a small sliver in size of the working class. Both therefore also needed a way to find support among different segments of the working class. What is true right from the beginning and through all periods is that in these alliances, the capitalist interests supplied the money, candidates, and "expertise" to the parties. The capitalist interests were, and are, therefore in command. The working class is expected to play the passive role as voters. So right from the beginning, both Republicans and Democrats were parties controlled by, and serving the interests (though different interests/sections) of capitalists.

Of course there has been a realignment of the parties today. It's clear from looking at the Bush Administration that the Republicans no longer look anything like Lincoln. They have become the party of big oil, energy and socially conservative values. And the Democrats at this moment look more like a party led by the interests of Wall Street, banking, insurance, and pharmaceuticals.

According to the Federal Election Commission data put together by the Center for Responsible Politics, Clinton and Obama ran first and second among all candidates—Democrats and Republicans—in contributions from the following industries: commercial banks, computers/Internet, education health professionals, hedge funds and private equity firms, pharmaceuticals, and television and film. Fifteen million in campaign contributions came from securities and investment firms, $3million from commercial banks, and $6million from other financial institutions.

Obama raised $27million at his inauguration alone through donations. Almost $18million of the total came from fewer than 400 people, who each donated the maximum of $50,000.

Just this Tuesday, Obama flew into Manhattan for a fundraiser where the entry fee was $30,400 per couple—the maximum contribution allowed by law. According to the LA Times, four of the seven co-chairs of the event and about a third of the guests came from big banks and Wall Street.

The reason I am going through all this is because I think it really helps to explain why Democrats speak to working class issues in their campaigns for president, and seem to turn their backs on workers as soon as they are elected. They speak to issues workers care about because they need votes. And as soon as they have those votes, they turn from main-street, to the where the money is.

This is how politics in Washington works. Corporations buy their seat at the table with millions of dollars. And corporations have gotten so used to their seat at the table, that they have become apart of the family. So much so that politicians and CEO's are almost interchangeable.

For example, Robert Rubin was the Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton when Wall Street was being deregulated and is now the head of the infamous Citygroup that received billions of dollars in bailout money. Rubin's minions are apart of the Obama team today.

On health care, Obama is returning the favor to two of his biggest donors—pharmaceuticals and health insurance companies—the biggest lobbyists for Max Baucus who is heading up Obama's health care reform (I like to call him Max Butt-kiss because he kisses the ass of big pharma and the insurance industry).

So how do we compete with the influence that comes with the power and money of Corporate America? How do we ensure that politicians follow through with their promises to the working class? How do we hold their feet to the fire?


How does change happen?

We don't have money to influence politicians. But we do have numbers and social power. The historian Howard Zinn famously wrote, it's not who's sitting in the White House, it's who's sitting in—who's sitting in at the lunch counters, in the universities, and workplaces.

Change has never been handed down on high from worker-friendly politicians. Change happens when people organize, make demands of politicians and refuse to budge until those demands are met.

In fact, I would argue that all of the substantial changes that have taken place throughout history to the benefit of workers have taken place because people have organized, fought and died for them en mass.

I'd like to look at the example of the 1930's and FDR since Obama's presidency and the economic crisis have drawn more than a couple comparisons. This is an important example for two other reasons. First, this is the period of time when the Democrats became known as the “party of the people”. Second, it is a period of time of immense social change—when workers won the right to unionize, social security benefits, and what aspects of the welfare state are still around.


Let's make a deal

In high school, we learn about the New Deal reforms as something that were graciously handed down from on high by FDR, president Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The story goes that these reforms were borderline "socialist". But the New Deal was not actually a sudden change of heart for the Democrats (Remember, until this time, they were the party of the Southern Confederacy). Rather, it was a calculated plan to save capitalism in a time of crisis, and to save it from revolution organized by an increasingly militant and radical working class.

Following the stock market crash and with unemployment reaching one-quarter of all workers in 1932, FDR enlisted the help of some of the country's most powerful Business CEO's who argued that crisis conditions required state intervention. His campaign was heavily financed by rich bankers and stockbrokers in the 1932 election. Roosevelt himself fit right in as he was from a powerful aristocratic New York family.

So the "New Deal Capitalists" looked to the private sector for inspiration, not the working class. Roosevelt himself was clear on his aims. In campaign speeches in 1936, he proclaimed himself as the savior of "the system of private profit and free enterprise" and "the best friend the profit system ever had".

You may say, “Well isn't that just the cynical socialist talking"? Well, just listen to how FDR exploited popular discontent to win support for his program, even in its own naming. Samuel I. Rosenman recounted how FDR came up with the New Deal in a book called, The Bonus Army: An American Epic. He describes FDR awaiting the Democratic nomination from the governor's mansion in Albany, NY when hundreds of WW1 vets were marching on Washington to demand that Hoover advance the payment of their bonus. Like Hoover though, FDR opposed paying the bonus.

In Albany, FDR received a call from Louisiana's populist Governor Huey Long. Long told Roosevelt that he would clinch the nomination if he embraced the bonus marchers. When FDR still refused, Long hung up, telling FDR that he was “a gone goose”. FDR's staff “began to think that Long may have been right.” So they crafted a speech for FDR that, while not openly endorsing the demands of the bonus marchers or of other ordinary people, pledged more vaguely “to a new deal for the American people.”

Fitting right in with this approach, FDR launched the National Recovery Act which attracted support from labor by guaranteeing the right to unionize. But FDR's intentions were for business unions to be formed. Workers became so frustrated with the legislation that it was referred to as the “National Runaround Act.

Because FDR's policies needed to appeal both to the working class and the ruling class, the content of them depended on who was better organized—on who was prepared to fight and win what the content of those policies would look like.

For the working class, this meant enormous union drives and strike waves across the country demanding the right to unionize. There were massive strikes in Toledo, Minneapolis, and San Francisco in 1934. And there were massive sit-down strikes across the country again in 1936-7.

Roosevelt recognized that working class discontent was reaching the boiling point. He granted reforms in hopes of releasing steam from the kettle to prevent working class rebellion. He summed up his own philosophy this way: "A true conservative corrects injustices to preserve social peace".


The sixties

The other period of time we think of as a time of change for workers was the 60's and 70's. And again, this is a time-period that people associate change with the Democratic Party—specifically the Kennedy and LBJ Administrations.

But the history of these movements tells a different story.

In 1961, civil rights workers rode buses through the South to force integration. The Freedom Rides faced attacks from racist mobs and responded in greater numbers with the rides. Rather than providing protection for the riders, Robert Kennedy (then attorney general) offered them a deal: stop the Freedom Rides and instead concentrate on voter registration in Mississippi with a guarantee that organizers would be protected by the federal government.

It’s not that the Democrats were strategizing on a more effective way to achieve civil rights. They feared alienating the Southern Dixiecrats who were still viciously in support of segregation, and still a significant section of the Party.

The Student Non Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) who was organizing the rides agreed to the offer, received foundation grants and established its headquarters in Mississippi. Soon after, SNCC was met with harassment, violence and arrests. And they received no protection from the federal government as promised. Before the year's end, the police had jailed almost the entire SNCC staff.

It was this process of trying to fight for change through the Democratic Party that laid the groundwork for a radicalization of the movement, and to the conclusion that more militant tactics were needed. This is how a movement can start in the early 60’s with Dr. King asking the Democrats "politely" for voting rights. And by the 70’s, those same activists are calling for Black Power and demonstrating with the Black Panther Party holding M16s.

Activists went through a similar process around the Vietnam anti-war movement. They moved from the streets, put on suits and ties, and spent their time campaigning for Lyndon B. Johnson instead. The slogan was, “Half the way with LBJ”. But after LBJ was elected, he didn’t prove to be any peace candidate at all. In fact, he escalated the war. Just as it did the civil rights movement, it was going through this process of struggle that radicalized the movement.

A certain momentum was built throughout these years of struggle. A certain mood—a mood of confidence and self-worth develops when some of the most oppressed people in society stand up and fight back. Others feel that they too can fight back.

This mood poured into the Women’s Liberation movement that won abortion rights and the Gay Liberation movement. This torrent of struggle—of teach-in’s and marches and rebellions—this is what forced the hand of the government. It wasn't the good-heartedness of the Democratic Party. This is evident when you think about how most of the actual reform was passed not by Kennedy or LBJ, but Nixon—at the end—at the movement’s height.


Gravedigger of social movements

So maybe you’re convinced that it takes struggle to win reforms.

But I want to argue that this is still not the full picture. The Democratic Party is not only a party of big business. It plays a specific role for the ruling class and for capitalism as a whole. The Democratic Party has, and continues to play a historic role in co-opting and demobilizing social movements when the ruling class feels threatened. This is the role of more left-leaning liberals within the Democratic Party—people that social movements tend to see as allies—the Jessie Jacksons, the Dennis Kucinichs. And it’s not a conspiracy. These Left Democrats are quite conscious of this role.


Mississippi Freedom Democrats

One of the best examples I want to give is from the civil rights movement.

To counter Mississippi's racist Democratic Party, activists formed a non-segregated party, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. The Party signed up 80,000 voters and elected a delegation to the Democratic Party convention. Arguing that it was the only party in Mississippi in which all could vote, the Freedom Democratic Party planned a fight to be seated instead of the segregationist Mississippi delegation.

But the Democrats, liberal and conservative alike, would have none of it. Lyndon B Johnson feared losing the Southern segregationist Democrats' support. Johnson used Democratic Liberals like Hurbert Humphrey to put pressure on the civil rights activists to give up its demands. When the Freedom Democratic Party refused to budge, finally Johnson offered a compromise. Instead of their sixty-eight delegates being seated as Mississippi's delegation, two Freedom Democrats would be seated at large while the entire segregationist delegation would be seated.

The Freedom Democrats rightfully called the deal a back of the bus compromise.

Here's what the report of the Liberal Americans for Democratic Action had to say about their role in 1964. I like this quote because it shows that there is a consciousness of this function of co-option played by the Left-Democrats.

Quick granting of voting rights will mean quick recruitment by the Democratic Party, which will mean quick scuttling of the Freedom Democratic Parties and SNCC control.

They played this role again shortly after. LBJ proceeded to enact the Great Society Programs to co-opt the social programs being organized by the Black Power movement. Here is how two Black Power activists of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) explained what happened to their group as this took place:

Participation in the War on Poverty was in several respects dysfunctional for CORE as an organization. Leaders who accepted the well-paying positions found it difficult to maintain active connections with their local affiliates, and since they were generally the most experienced chapter members, the loss was substantial...

Thirty years earlier, an organizer for the mine workers union complained in the same way about the role the Democrats were playing:

FDR has been carefully selecting my key lieutenants and appointing them to honorary posts in various of his multitudinous, grandiose commissions. He has his lackeys fawning upon and wining and dining many of my people...In a quiet, confidential way he approaches one of my lieutenants, weans his loyalty away, overpowers him with the dazzling glory of the White House, and appoints him to a federal post under such circumstances that his prime loyalty shall be to the President and only a secondary, residual one to the working class movement form which he came.


Stay independent or die, the movement that is

I think a key aspect of rebuilding a Left today and winning change is building movements that have a consciousness about this role of the Democratic Party. I think this is so crucial because there is a long history not only of the Democrats trying to co-opt and demobilize movements such as with the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. But there is also a rich history of the movements making a consciousness decision about strategy to fight for change within, or through the Democratic Party.


A New Deal, to destroy the labor movement

As the level of working class struggle grew in the battle over unionization, and the economy began to stabilize, big business began to desert Roosevelt. But the labor movement's rank and file was leaving the Democratic Party too.

There was a serious movement developing to build a real party for the people—a labor party which would reflect the increase in class struggle and create an independent organization. A 1937 Gallup poll showed that at least 21% of the population supported the formation of a national Farmer-Labor Party as an alternative to the ruling class Democrat and Republican parties.

But the Union leadership made a conscious decision to put their lot in with FDR and the Democratic Party. The CIO created Labor's Nonpartisan League which raised $750,000 for Roosevelt. Not only is this money that could have gone to strike funds and more organizing drives. But during the final weeks of the campaign, the CIO actually suspended its organizing drives so that it could devote its full organizational resources to Roosevelt's reelection.

When the 1935 United Auto Workers (UAW) convention voted overwhelming to "actively support and give assistance to the formation of a national Farmer-Labor Party" and voted against supporting Roosevelt for president, top CIO officials simply pulled the UAW aside and explained that either the convention would agree to support Roosevelt or the CIO would revoke all its funding for the UAW. Blackmail.

This strategy of change through the Democratic Party is so dangerous because it not only demobilizes the movement by funneling resources into campaigns. But it also disarms the movement. Strike funds were used for Roosevelt’s campaign. And what did Labor get in return for delivering the election to FDR? FDR turned his back to a desperate appeal by Labor as workers were massacred by police in the Little Steel Strike a year later in 1937.


Liberalism today

Unfortunately, this strategy of wedding movements to the Democratic Party continues to dominate. It is a serious reason there is such a gap between where the level of consciousness of workers is at and where the level of organization is at.


Anti-war movement

The vast majority of workers in this country are against both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the anti-war movement is no where to be found. It must be said that the leadership of the anti-war movement—United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ)—made a decision in 2004 to spend its time and money organizing for John Kerry instead of organizing anti-war mobilizations.

But when the anti-war movement throws its lot in with someone that came to the Democratic Primary saying that he was "reporting for duty", it creates quite a problem. That's a real existential crisis when you have an anti-war movement supporting an openly pro-war candidate for president. To organize an anti-war protest would be to put John Kerry on the spot for his pro-war positions.


Abortion rights movement

Around the same time, I demonstrated with a million in DC in the March For Women's Lives to defend abortion rights. Talk about an opportunity. What could have happened if the march organizers called on every person to go back into their community, organize teach-ins and clinic defenses? If every one of those demonstrators convinced one of their friends, we could have a movement of 2 million instead of 1 million.

Instead, leaders of NOW, NARAL and the Democratic Party got up—one after another—to argue that the most important thing we can do as activists is to get a Democrat into office. For me, the most memorable was when Hillary Clinton got up and said that when her husband—Bill Clinton—was in office, we did not have to get into the streets and protest.

Ironically, and tragically, Bill Clinton played a key role in whittling down abortion rights law by law placing restriction after restriction on a woman's right to choose—so much so, that now, over 80% of counties across the US do not provide needed abortion services.


Equal Marriage

And who remembers the equal marriage demonstrations?

In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court historically decided in favor of legalizing gay marriage. In San Francisco, more than 2,500 gay and lesbian couples lined up to receive marriage licenses after which the Mayor announced the city would begin issuing the licenses in defiance of the state. In cities large and small local officials began issuing same-sex marriage licenses. And in cities across the country, gay rights supporters organized protests to demand marriage rights. In a matter of weeks, there was finally a platform for people to express their outrage at Bush's attacks on gay rights and a momentum to confidently demand full and equal rights for gay marriage.

Shamefully, Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank—the best-known openly gay member of Congress—publicly opposed the thousands of gay marriages in San Francisco, claiming that the time "wasn't right." The time wasn't right for the Democrats because it was February of a presidential election year. Leaders of the Democratic Party weren't happy that a polarizing issue had grabbed the spotlight, so they urged moderation and compromise. Some of the national figures most associated with the issue warned that "going too far" could set off a backlash. And the movement followed suit.


Perspectives for today

So where do we go today?

Today, Obama is telling us to organize to hold him accountable. I think we should listen to him.

How many of you were at the National March for Equality in DC?....Well, I think in a lot of ways it represents where we need to be going. It's not a done deal, but there are a whole bunch of indicators.

First, this movement was built from the ground up. The traditional organizations of LGBT rights that have for years now been focused on lobbying the Democrats, would not endorse the march. In fact, groups like Human Rights Campaign tried to use their weight to keep a national march from taking place. The idea is that we need to “give Obama time”.

But activists across the country built the march from the ground up with hardly any money or resources. Everyday people went into their communities and onto their campus and found ways to get hundreds of people to DC.

And it was only when it became clear that the march was developing some serious traction that the organizations focused on the Democratic Party got behind it.

Second, the Democrats tried to play their traditional role of sucking the wind out of the sails of the movement. Obama gave a speech the night before the march to a fancy wine-em and dine-em HRC dinner where he made the same promises (again) to the movement. He promised to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, but gave no timetable.

And then of course there is Barney Frank—essentially saying the same thing he did in 2004—that we have to give Obama time, and that protesting doesn't do anything.

But activists didn't buy it. They continued to march anyway. And one of the chants at the march ended up being “Barney Frank, Fuck You!”

This doesn't mean that marchers have made a conscious decision that the movement must remain independent from the Democratic Party. In fact, the sentiment of most marchers I talked to was that Obama is still our “ally” in the White House. But marchers were frustrated and angry with Obama and are willing to organize to hold his feet to the fire.

This is what it means to build independent movements. It means that we organize the strongest movements possible regardless of who is in office. We organize and fight until we get what we demand, and then we fight for some more.

Lastly, I want to say that one lesson I have drawn from the march is that the question of what we do, what our politics are, what our strategies are, and how organized we are to implement them actually does matter.

It wasn’t automatic that this march would take place. It was a real debate between those with a grassroots strategy and those oriented on the Democratic Party. This is why we need to continue to build organization—especially Socialist organization to actually fight for political strategies and a set of politics that can win.

I’m not into looking back and saying “what if…what if…what if…”. But what I do know is that we have to build the kind of organization that can compete with the labor bureaucracy of the 1930’s that sabotaged the movement on behalf of the Democrats. We have to build the kind of organization that could point a way forward when the civil rights leaders took paid positions in LBJ’s poverty programs.

I think the ISO is building this kind of organization. That’s why I joined years back. And if you think you are interested in this project too, you should join as well.


UPDATES TO THE SPEECH:

1. "NARAL and Planned Parenthood: Ineffectiveness Anti-Choice Democrats Can Rely On" by Jane Hamsher

Introduction to the ISO (Sat, Nov. 15th at NESC)

What I want to do is try and present an introduction to the International Socialist Organization—what we stand for, how we analyze and understand the world, and how that analysis informs how we operate and act concretely to change it.

Theory

Inside the ISO, we put a priority on revolutionary theory and history. Theory is important because we want to change the world. And in order to change the world, we need to understand how it works.

The ISO uses Marxism because it best makes sense of the world and is the best guide to action for those that want to change it.

Not Capitalism

Obviously, we are for Socialism, not capitalism.

As Marxists, we understand that regardless of who is in political office or how nice your boss is, capitalism has its own logic. Capitalism is a system based on competition for profits. Corporations run by a small minority ruling class compete with each other by exploiting the labor of the majority, or working class.

The logic of capitalism is being clearly exposed in the midst of this economic crisis when our rulers are trying to fix a broken system on our backs.

The logic of capitalism has been demonstrated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of Bush's lies have been exposed. The real motivation behind the wars is US capitalism's drive for profits in competition with their competitors. If US capitalism is not controlling the oil profits and resources of the Middle East, other competitors will. And if it wasn't oil and the Middle East, it would be competition for control of other resources and profits in other areas of the world.

We argue that imperialism flows right out of capitalism itself. Just like Walmart competing with Kmart inside the US, whole countries compete for profits and resources around the world using military and economic force.

Everything capitalism produces, it does so for profit. And the way things are distributed is based on profits. It is not profitable to distribute the overabundance of food to the starving, so it rots on shelves. It is not profitable to house the homeless, so buildings sit vacant.

This is why we argue that war, poverty and oppression are products of the capitalist system, not of lazy individuals or bad rulers. It is not that there is scarcity. It is that it is not profitable to distribute it based on human need.

The alternative to this system is a society based on workers collectively owning and controlling the wealth that their labor creates.

Socialism

Currently, workers produce everything. We make the cars, we process the food, cook it, and then serve it, and over at RIT we write the code. But at the end of the day, your boss takes what you have produced and decides how it will be distributed. Your boss decides what will get produced tomorrow and for what purpose. And your boss wants you to produce as fast as possible, for as little pay and benefits as possible because this is how he (or she) will make as much profits as possible.

Why does the ruling class get this privilege? Not because they are smarter or more physically able than you or I. In fact, if you ask any worker, they will tell you that they know how to do their job better than their boss does. Karl Marx pointed out that the ruling class gets to call the shots because they own the means of production—the factories, the buildings, the machinery...etc.

Socialism is about workers—the majority—collectively controlling the means of production democratically: Collective ownership and collective decision-making at the point of production. To sum it up, socialism is worker's power.

If workers ran their work places we could produce for human need instead of for profit and plan out what is needed. The reason this is possible is because there will be no one to exploit if the majority—the working class—is in control.

Revolution Not Reform

So great, how do we get there??

Well any change that has ever come about and benefited the working class has come because of mass working class struggle.

Look at: the right to unionize, desegregation, abortion rights, and an ending to the Vietnam war. These things did not end because our rulers said, "you know I think we need to do something nice for our workers". Workers fought and died for these reforms. They forced whoever was sitting in the White House to follow through. And in the process of fighting for these reforms, there was a tendency for workers to develop more confidence and take on more and more of the system as a whole.

For that reason, socialists want to be at the heart of struggles for reforms.

But reforms to the system do not change the logic of the system as described above. The logic of the system is profit. The system then will always try to dismantle and erode these reforms away from the working class. Look at where we are now with the eight-hour work day, abortion rights, and welfare. If we don't want to be fighting to defend reforms our whole life, we need to change the logic of the whole system. We need socialism.

And socialism needs to come about through a revolution. The ruling class will never just agree to hand the reigns over to workers when we demand it. In fact, if you look throughout history, you will see that strike movements become battles with the police, hired thugs, and even the National Guard very quickly.

The factories will not be given to us. They will need to be forcefully taken. If the workers are already on mass strike, essentially, they have already seized the means of production. The question is that of defending the worker's control. This is why Marx argues that the first stage in a successful socialist revolution is the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

The structures of the present government have been created by capitalism to protect the rule of the ruling class. The working class needs an entirely different kind of state—based on councils of workers' delegates. It needs to create its own military. It needs its own media…etc. to prevent the ruling class from reclaiming power. Put another way. The dictatorship of the proletariat means enforced rule of the majority over the minority.

After the worker's state has been defended successfully and the resistance of the capitalist class has been crushed, there will no longer be a need for a state. The working class is the vast majority class in society, and without the resistance of the ruling class, who will there be left to repress? No one. The state would lose its purpose.

This is why Marx argues that between the dictatorship of the proletariat—what is usually defined as socialism—and communism—a classless society, the state withers away.

Our analysis of the state informs why socialists cannot use the government and legislate socialism into being. The government and even democracy under capitalism are instruments created to keep power in the hands of the ruling class.

Think about the billion-dollar corporate lobbying industry in Washington. Both Democratic and Republican candidates receive hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the bidding of the ruling class. The judicial system, the banking system, the laws—these are all structures to protect capitalist rule. A socialist government needs something altogether different.

Why the Working Class

Contrary to the way media and much of the Left portrays the working class as lazy and apathetic, the ISO argues that workers are the key to the fight for socialism.

Capitalism has drawn the working class together on the same factory floor or workplace with hundreds of thousands of other workers.

Workers' central role in production gives them social power. Workers can organize not to produce, shut down their workplace, and even grind whole industries to a halt. This hits capitalism where it counts—in their ability to make profits.

To win a strike, workers need to prevent the bosses from getting the machinery up and running again. But workers on strike need also to eat, their children need to be taken care of, and workers in battle with the police may need healthcare.

You can see then that workers through struggle are forced to confront the running of society as a whole. And as workers take this task on, it becomes clearer to them they can run this system better and more efficiently then their current rulers.

Oppression

It is important to note that this cannot be successful if workers do not come together across racial lines, sexual orientation and nationality as well. Capitalism uses sexism and racism to pit workers against one another. It uses nationalism to justify its wars—pitting one country's workers against another. Socialists reject this because we understand that we have far more in common with other workers regardless of race, sex and/or nationality than we do with our bosses.

It is easy to see the possibility for workers overcoming these divisions when linked arm and arm in the struggle for a new society.

In the ISO, we support all the struggles of the oppressed. The liberation of the oppressed is essential to socialist revolution and impossible without it.

Examples?

At this point people generally say, "Great! Socialism…revolution…the working class…fighting oppression…now give me an example of what you're talking about."

Well, throughout history, strike committees have tended to develop out of working class struggle itself in order to make decisions, coordinate and organize the strikes. These strike committees were called: soviets in Russian in 1905 and 1917 and there are many more examples throughout history.

We argue as Lenin formulated in April of 1917 that these decision-making bodies are the seeds for a future socialist society—that we can build a society based on direct control of the workplace through workers councils on a mass scale.

This is exactly what happened for a time in Russia in 1917. Lenin did not take power on behalf of the workers. Lenin and the Bolshevik party put forward the slogan "All power to the soviets", workers themselves took power, and a new state was created based on the soviets. Leaders were immediately recallable and paid no more than the average worker.

This is why we defend the Russian revolution as an example of why workers power is possible—the opposite of what our history books and others on the Left tell us.

Revolution Betrayed

Next comes the question: What happened to this worker's state?

Well, concrete historical analysis flies in the face that all revolutions inevitably degenerate into tyranny.

In fact, the Russian revolution failed because it did not spread internationally. Lenin and the Bolsheviks knew international revolution was crucial because the working class is international and capitalism is international. You cannot have an island of socialism within a sea of capitalism. For these same reasons, we in the ISO are internationalists.

So Russian industry was decimated along with the working class while trying to defend the revolution from invading capitalist armies. Socialism—a society based on equal distribution could not and cannot today be built on scarcity.

Eventually, bureaucracy—led by Stalin developed to manage Russia where the working class power had once stood. Stalin gave up on the project of international socialism and led a counter-revolution destroying any genuine memory of worker's power.

State Capitalism

You can see what a far cry from socialism the Stalinist counter-revolution was. And the same can be said for China under Mao, Cuba under Castro, and the Eastern Bloc.

The ISO argues that these revolutions were not the act of the working class itself. Instead, they were the act of a small armies or guerrilla forces that claimed to act in the name of the working class.

There was no worker's power in these countries. Instead, a state bureaucracy called the shots. The state acted as a new ruling class squeezing the entire working class just like an individual corporation would, but to compete with other capitalist countries around the world.

Our tradition therefore calls these countries as State Capitalist, not socialist.

The Party

So I've tried to outline a ton of stuff. But the missing thread in all of this is the role of revolutionaries. In the ISO, we are Leninists because the building of a revolutionary socialist party is necessary for a successful socialist revolution.

Marx explained that workers have mixed and uneven consciousness that is constantly changing. So most workers have a mixture of progressive and reactionary ideas. On some issues, workers sound like socialists. On others, they sound like Lou Dobbs. This develops because of a contradiction within capitalism.

1. Capitalism through exploitation and oppression is constantly pushing workers toward struggle with the system.

2. But at the same time it controls the media—it controls the flow of ideas in society. As Marx put it, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. They are used to justify the status quo.

Marx pointed out that ideas change in struggle, and there is a tendency for worker's ideas to radicalize. But it is not automatic how worker's ideas will change in struggle. It is crucial that the revolutionaries are organized in struggle to ensure that workers draw revolutionary conclusions.

The role of a revolutionary party becomes even more important in a revolutionary situation. It is not automatic that workers will believe that they can run society themselves. It is not automatic that they will know how to take the struggle toward socialism. The revolutionary party trained in revolutionary theory and history—that has learned lessons from years of struggle will need to win leadership by putting forward the ideas that make the most sense.

This is what we mean when we talk about a Vanguard Party. We want to organize all of the most militant and politically advanced sections of the working class into a party to be as effective as possible in winning over new layers and eventually the whole working class in struggle.

The ISO

We in the ISO do not claim to be the Vanguard Party. This will be decided by who puts forward the best ideas and wins leadership in struggle.

But we are trying to play a role in rebuilding a revolutionary Left in this country. And we hope to someday win leadership on a mass scale within the working class because we think we have pretty good ideas about the world and how to change it.

So I want to finish with some specifics about the ISO and what it means to be a member.

Branch Routine: The ISO has weekly branch meetings. Branch meetings rotate each week to include two organizational meetings, an educational meeting, and a public meeting. Within the branch, we have a division of labor so that we can organize direct interventions into ongoing struggles. So in Rochester, we have a fraction that organizes a section of the branch to intervene in C.A.N., one to intervene in R.A.W., and one to organize building the branch.

Socialist Worker: Every member of the ISO buys, reads, and sells Socialist Worker Newspaper. We do this in two ways.

1) We call the first way "3-for-me's". So members purchase three papers when a new issue comes out. These are to be used to develop political relationships with classmates, co-workers, friends and political contacts—people that may be interested in socialist politics.

Socialist Worker provides a socialist analysis of the world on a regular basis. It is therefore provides a crucial lead for socialists to engage the people around us politically.

2) The second way we use Socialist Worker is on street sales. The enables us to meet people that we would never get to see otherwise. There are far more people out there that are interested in socialism that we can relate to.

By engaging people and selling socialist worker, we develop our members because we have to learn how to articulate and relate socialist politics with the people around us.

And of course, we charge a dollar for our paper because we need to keep it coming out. There are no advertisements in there. We get donations from the people that are politically interested.

Education: Education is a crucial part of every branch routine. No one is going to teach us revolutionary theory and history. This is why the ISO has put so much time, energy and resources into Haymarket Books and ISR. Ideas are our weapons to be used in the struggles around us.

Dues: Every ISO member pays monthly dues to the organization based on a sliding scale. It's pretty obvious that no one is going to fund a revolutionary organization but the revolutionaries. And let's face it. Putting on conferences, producing a newspaper, and now daily online SW website takes resources. Dues allow use to be self-sustaining and remain independent.

Lastly, to wrap up, if you agree with our politics, if you agree with what we stand for, if you agree with our project, and you have a pretty good sense of what we do, you should join. If you're a socialist, you should join a socialist organization.

halloween playlist

So we had a pretty amazing specially evil psychedelic therapy in honor of halloween at the bug jar last week. So i though i'd post some of the songs i played in no particular order:

1. black hearted woman - the standells

2. evil hearted you - the yardbirds

3. teenage werewolf - the cramps

4. the witch - the sonics

5. you must be a witch - the lollipop shoppe

6. devil in disguise - elvis

7. ventures in space (an assortment of songs off the album)

8. i'm gonna dress in black - them

9. paint it black - the rolling stones

10. i put a spell on you - screamin jay hawkins

11. evil - howlin wolf

12. human fly - the cramps

13. psycho - the sonics

14. season of the witch - donovan

15. evil hoodoo - the seeds

16. people are strange - the doors

17. st james infirmary - the standells

18. fire - arthur brown

19. electric funeral - black sabbath

20. feast of the mau mau - scream jay hawkins

21. down in the bottom - the groupies

22. ill go crazy - james brown

23. i move around - lee hazlewood

Los Mockers "Original Recordings 1965-1967"

i have no idea how i got this record. i'm pretty sure i ordered it through Get Hip.

...Anyway, it's pretty clear that you can't always judge a record by it's cover...kinda like Eddie Haskell. Los Mockers look like they are posing for the yearbook club high school photo (and apparently we are looking at this photo through a telescope). But don't let the picture fool you. Their music's got that real soul like...Daniel Desario!

The music is garage from Uruguay...the Uruguayan Invasion! My first listen impression is that this record rules. It has the early garage Rolling Stones feel to it but with more screamin. It hits all the usual themes. Some songs are just straight-forward garage (Girl you won't succeed), some songs slow it down and get a bit poppier (Can't be a lie), and there's a song with a great beat/psych feel (Empty harem). My favorite is a brilliant head-boppin working-class theme-song (What a life):

I have got to eat

So every day I work

And I've have to dress

so I must do my job

I don't want to work

but I must to feed you

I don't like my job

but I've got to dress you

What a life

Wait a minute. The lyrics are in english? And that's when you realize that this band doesn't make any sense. Los Mockers are a Latin American band singing in english and the singer sounds like a french dude. Yah...i don't know. i still haven't figured it out. But this record rules regardless.

The Ventures In Space

i want to start by saying that The Ventures rule. It is my official policy to purchase any Ventures records i can find in thriftstores and i usually pick up anything under $5, because it's always worth it. Ventures In Space is one of the best and i was lucky to find a great copy cheap.

It's the usual Ventures recipe: instrumental-driven surf music with a theme. The space theme is great. The songs are slow and creepy. It sounds like it could be the soundtrack to a Tim Burton movie if Danny Elfman didn't have that shit on lockdown. Think Tim Burton mixed with Hitchcock mixed with Star Trek. The album seems to be experimenting with all sorts of sound effects and synthesizers. It therefore has a psychedelic feel to it as well.

Ventures In Space holds together as an album. The songs are versatile but flow from song to song. "The bat" kicks off the album with fuzzy guitars, tribal floor toms, and a great ride-driven drum beat. The side ends with psychedelic-graveyard-dance jams "The fourth dimension" and "The twilight zone" (That's right. Get your ipods and your goth friends together for a 4am trip to Mt Hope Cemetery).

The second side of Ventures In Space touches down for a landing and grounds us with some poppy surf tunes that more resemble the first Davie Allan record than the first side of this one. But the fourth song "Fear" launches us back into space with a rather slow and sexy melody (Note: "Fear" can be played at 45rpm and it sounds sweet as well. i've actually been playing it this way on my dj night) and finishes off strong.

So if you're a fan good surf music but you have a soft spot in your heart for some things goth--maybe you sneak out to 80's night cause you got your eyes on a girl with black lipstick, i say ask her over and put on Ventures In Space. You can probably makeout with her.

The Montells/The Evil Split 12"

So i had a pretty good day today. It was my day off. i was woken up by my new landlord at 9:30am hungover. i rode over to borrow my roommate's car and my bike chain broke. Then i went to Record Archive and ran into my friend Tyler. i picked up a couple crucial records missing from my collection (finally, i got Nancy Sinatra "Boots" and Lou Reed "Transformer")...but the most interesting is the split 12" by The Montells and Evil.

i've never heard of either of these bands. They are both from Florida. There is nothing special about em. But it is definitely solid 60's garage punk. It's a bit darker than the standard. It reminds me of the first Pretty Things record (which i love by the way).

It must be said though that Evil definitely carries the split. They are darker and nastier than the Montells. Plus, on side two, you find that they slow it down and get creepier. It keeps to the standard garage framework but feels almost like "Come on in" by The Music Machine. It's nice. And i'm glad i decided to get it.

Evil is definitely worth doing some more research on and finding real singles.

Note: The split is listed The Evil. But the band called themselves Evil. Apparently the record companies and radio shows...etc just assumed and put "The" in front of their name despite their objections.

This isn't a great review because it's 4:30am and i can't sleep and i'm drunk...but still listen to this record for $16 or less.

Think i'm gonna watch Fargo.

kyle.

Peter Laughner "Nocternal Digressions"

After having a lengthy discussion about making music with my friend Cory, he recommended that i check out Peter Laughner's solo stuff. So i ebayed and google-searched. But i found nothin. i have no idea how to find this stuff. In fact, i'm not really sure that it was ever released. So i really don't know how you can get this other than finding a friend to make you a copy (thanks Cory)...

Life.

To understand his music--or any music for that matter--it helps to understand something about Peter Laughner's life. Music, after all is an expression of some kind of interaction between the world around and the musician.

i only know what i remember Cory telling me after getting wasted at the Bug Jar and from what little i've read on the intergeek. But Peter Laughner grew up in the 60's obsessively listening to The Velvet Underground--basically a worshiper Lou Reed. He was friends with Lester Bangs and wrote about rock'n'roll for Creem Magazine. He played in a sweet punk band called Rocket From the Tombs which was pretty much the precursor to The Dead Boys.

In a lot of ways though, it seems like Peter Laughner was caught in a really tough period. He was witnessing the death of probably the most dynamic period of music in US history and the ushering in of....disco. All he wanted to do was make music and no one ever appreciated anything he did. He was a sweet guitar player but wanted to play punk-driven rock'n'roll. He never got along with any of his bands. And when he tried to perform solo, the only venues really were coffee shops. And of course they hated him because he was basically playing punk music--not exactly complimentary of the latte.

You can see how a situation like this could lead to disaster.

Album.

Well, in 1977, Peter Laughner came home to his Cleveland apartment, pressed play on his tape recorder, recorded what is now called Nocturnal Digressions and then died that night of organ failure. Cory calls it suicide and after listening to the album, i think he's right.

Peter Laughner was barely coherent. He even tells us in between songs that it's from all the drugs, alcohol and Lucky Strikes. His voice is raspy from the beginning and deteriorates throughout the course of his recording. It's clear that he's walking himself into the grave.

Then there's the songs that he decides to play. From Television's "Blank Generation" to The Velvet Underground's "Pale Blue Eyes", it says a lot about Peter Laughner's life at that time. When you're listening, you can almost see him playing in your head (In fact, you're probably looking similar).

Peter Laughner chooses mostly covers to play. i think this makes a lot of sense given the way his music was received, not to mention what a fan of rock'n'roll he was. He almost seems to be paying his last tributes: Television, Robert Johnson, the Rolling Stones, Van Morrison....etc.

Peter Laughner ends the album with an abbreviated version of "Summer Time Blues" rushing through to finish before the tape cuts off. And it does. And that's the end.

The result is a mix of "i don't give a fuck" punk, folk, and post World War II blues. The recording quality is horrible. His guitar playing is amazing. And he plays the songs beautifully. But more than that, it expresses (maybe better than anything i have ever heard) alienation from the world around you, and alienation from yourself. It expresses being depressed and being pissed off about it. It's what music is about.