Divide and Conquer or Divide and Subdivide? How Not to Refight the First International (2017) by Dr. Mark Leier

05 Wednesday Jul 2017

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Imperialism, Civic Engagement (Activism), Dr. Karl Marx (1818-1883), History, History of Economic Theory, Political Economy, Political Science

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Against the Grain, C.S. Soong, Divide and Conquer or Divide and Subdivide? How Not to Refight the First International (2017), Dr. Karl Marx (1818-1883), Dr. Mark Leier, KPFA, Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (1814-1876), Pacifica Radio Network, Simon Fraser University (British Columbia), transcript

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—One of the biggest schisms on the left of the political spectrum has manifested itself over the last century or more between two broad groupings—namely, anarchists and socialists. The anarchists see no validity (moral or otherwise) in the authority of the state form. Conversely, the socialists have proven to be more optimistic about the possibilities for progressive or radical reforms within the state form. Dr. Mark Leier, a Professor of History at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, has just published a new pamphlet about this long-running division on the left, taking Dr. Karl Marx and Mr. Mikhail Bakunin as figureheads for these two political tendencies on the left. Indeed, in their time (late 19th century), Marx and Bakunin were (as today) two of the most well-known figures on the left. And this schism eventually shattered the First International (or the International Workingmen’s Association), the first international attempt to unite the left against capitalist exploitation of the world’s working classes.

On today’s edition of free speech radio’s Against the Grain, host C.S. Soong spoke with Dr. Leier about the new pamphlet entitled “Divide and Conquer or Divide and Subdivide? How Not to Refight the First International”. This is a fascinating interview, which provides us with useful background on Marx, Bakunin, the First International, and one of the deepest and most enduring divisions on the left. Dr. Leier compared and contrasted the two hugely influential leftists. And, in so doing, Dr. Leier’s research seemed to suggest (reading pending) that the limitations of their respective temperaments definitely hindered their ability (and, by extension, the ability of their respective followings) to unite an effective and sustainable broad-based anti-capitalist left movement resistance.

Messina

***

[Transcript draft by Messina for Against the Grain and Lumpenproletariat.]

AGAINST THE GRAIN—[5 JUL 2017] “Today on Against the Grain, the battle waged between Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin within the First International was, according to historian Mark Leier, some of the nastiest sectarian fighting we have seen on the left. I’m C.S.

“Mark Leier discusses the lives and ideas of Marx and Bakunin, and argues that the two men had more similarities than is commonly believed—coming right up.”

[Against the Grain theme music continues]

“And this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio. I’m C.S. Soong.

“Two leading radicals—Karl Marx and anarchist Mikhail Bakunin—famously clashed in the 1860s. They bickered and fought and heaped invective on each other. And, as a consequence, the International Workingmen’s Association, known as the First International, split in two in 1872. Hostility and tension between socialists and anarchists continue to this day. And Mark Leier, for one, wonders whether it could have been different. (c. 1:36)

“Leier a Professor of History at Simon Fraser University has compared the background and ideas of Marx and Bakunin and has found many similarities, similarities ignored by or unknown to many who’ve written about or analysed the momentous breakup of the First International. Leier has also analysed the temperaments of these two men for clues into why they disliked and distrusted each other so much. Leier, who wrote a biography called Bakunin: The Creative Passion, has come out with a new pamphlet about Marx and Bakunin. The pamphlet’s title is ‘Divide and Conquer or Divide and Subdivide? How Not to Refight the First International’.

“When Mark Leier joined me from British Columbia, I asked him what the First International was.” (c. 2:23)

DR. MARK LEIER: “The First International was an attempt of a number of left-wing and communist and working class and anarchist political groups to come together to create the organisation, that would help workers across the world build a new kind of solidarity. It was started in 1864. And its first meeting was in London. And its first congress, although they had delegates mostly in Europe, it was helped a year later in Geneva.”

C.S. SOONG: “And what were the roles of Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin within the First International?”

DR. MARK LEIER: “The two organisers and radicals represented different wings and different ideas about how the socialist revolution was going to come about. I think the differences have really been overstated.

“But what we see in the First International is a deep feud between Bakunin and his followers ,and the Proudhon followers that were allied with him with a small group of Marxists in there. (3:37)

“And they used—as anyone, who’s been at a co-op meeting or a left-wing meeting or a [] council meeting or a departmental meeting of some kind knows how these things can develop. And they can become very nasty long after everyone has forgotten what the original battles were all about.

“So, one of the things, that happened was the two different sides used some small differences on small matters to become trigger points to engage in a kind of schismatic in-fighting.” (c. 4:04)

C.S. SOONG: “And this in-fighting climaxed with a final split between the two men, between their two factions at the Hague Congress of the First International in 1872. Tell us what happened there.”

DR. MARK LEIER: “Yeah. You know; again, it was very typical of the kinds of things. But, basically, two sides lined up and held various votes on matters. And voting goes back and forth. And, finally, however, Marx and his allies win a couple of crucial votes. And they use that as a way to kick out Bakunin and the Bakuninists.

“And they, then, moved the International’s headquarters to New York City, so virtually nobody could get to the next congress. And the whole thing pretty much wraps up by 1876.

“So, the bitter irony for the left is this attempt to forge a new solidarity, greater unity dissolves into factional fights, into fueding. One side takes its marbles and goes home.

“The anarchists do create another International shortly after that, which continues for some years. And, of course, in the 1880s there was a revival of something called the Second International, which was very much an International of the social democratic party. It does not have the same broad range of left-wing members and ideas in it.” (c. 5:37)

C.S. SOONG: “So, in this pamphlet you have written for PM Press—it’s called ‘Divide and Conquer or Divide and Subdivide? How Not to Refight the International’—you actually go back in time. You look at the upbringings and the years of youth and young adulthood of, both, Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, Michael Bakunin. And it’s very revealing. And it tells me, at least, as one reader of the pamphlet, a lot about who these men were, where they came from, and how, in some ways, similar they were. And that’s part of your point—isn’t it?—that these two men were more similar than one might think based on everything we’ve heard about the antagonism between them. (c. 6:27)

“So, let’s start with Bakunin. You write that Bakunin’s family was part of the Russian nobility. Does that mean, Mark, that his family was rich, was part of the idle rich?”

DR. MARK LEIER: “No, it doesn’t. One of the things, that’s happened in this long feud between anarchists and Marxists between 1864 and the present is that both sides are quick to point out the other as being absolutely unrepresentative of any kind of working class or real left wing movement by saying, in this case, that Bakunin was not a worker, but was an aristocrat. And it is true. But his family was not in the circles of the czar. His estate was pretty far from Moscow and from St. Petersburg. And it did not mean what we tend to think of when we think of aristocrats. You know; we think of Queen Victoria, when we think of the czar. That’s not what life was like.

“The family did control the lives of about two thousand serfs. But that did not confer huge wealth. This was a family, that had more many than peasants—absolutely—but had to pay strict attention to housekeeping, had to pay strict attention to the books in order to keep going. When you look at the letters from Bakunin’s father, it’s filled with—you know; we’re not sure if we’re gonna make it this month. We’re really having a difficult time making ends meet. It did mean that they had the luxury of educating the children. And, so, Michael and his sisters and his brothers got a very good education by tutors, that were brought into the home. They were given the training appropriate for gentlemen and ladies. But it was a training, that was very much instrumental in the sense that you prepare the men to step into careers in the army or as professionals or, perhaps, as people able to manage the estate and to provide the sisters of Michael Bakunin with the graces and skills and personal characteristics, that would allow them to make good marriages. (c. 8:38)

“This is not a family rolling in wealth, although it was certainly enough to send Bakunin off to school where he went to a military academy and took up service in the czar’s army. But he was not one of the idle rich in that sense.” (c. 8:54)

C.S. SOONG: “So, what about Karl Marx’s parents? Obviously, he grew up in Germany, not in Russia. Where did his parents fall within the ranks of German society? And how important was education in Marx’s family, you know, when he was a kid?”

DR. MARK LEIER: “Marx’s family was very similar to Bakunin’s. They were not aristocrats. But his father was a lawyer. He had vineyards, that he ran. So, he had enough wealth to educate the children, enough social status, that Marx’s father would meet with local politicians and had some interest and some political sway, as did Bakunin’s father, but not enough to guarantee careers, not enough to allow them to stop working and simply live off the income produced by workers. That was not their situation at all. (c. 9:49)

“What is interesting to me is that both sides have looked at the parents of Bakunin and of Marx to say: We can dismiss either of them, depending on your side, as being petit bourgeois elements. That cuts both ways. And it is easy for both sides to overestimate the class position of Bakunin and Marx. So, I wanted to pay attention to that to say that they were not unlike rebels, that we see all over the place. If you look at the make up, for example, of the Students for a Democratic Society [SDS], in their very title, they were students. They had some access to education. The Weather Underground, very similar. It’s not true of all organisations, of course. But it’s not a surprise that many people of the left had, at least, some exposure to education. It’s pretty difficult to work all day and, then, go home and become an expert in all the arcane matters of the political economy, that we need to think about on the left.” (c. 10:51)

C.S. SOONG: “Mark Leier is his name. He is a Professor in this History Department at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. And he’s author of ‘Divide and Conquer or Divide and Subdivide? How Not to Refight the First International’. And he’s also the author of a biography of Bakunin, Michael Bakunin. I’m C.S. [Soong]. And this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio.

“So, Bakunin, like Marx, was the oldest of the male children in his family. And you said that he was sent to a—or he went to a military academy. So, I understand that demands were placed on young Michael. But he would develop into some type of military officer. How did he do in school at that academy?”

DR. MARK LEIER: “Well, he was not a great student. His passion for rebellion surfaced early, though not in episodes of organising resistance among his fellow cadets, but in that kind of passive-aggressive behaviour, that is often how people, who don’t have much power, respond. He was, like many students, slow at turning in his assignments. He didn’t do very well on many of his exams. He was considered to be very bright. And, if only he would apply himself, the theory went, he would do very well at that.

“The point of going to military academy was not just to become a soldier, but enlist in the army, with any luck, to have a good war, if such a thing is possible. And it certainly was for officers; it meant escaping and acquitting yourself with some honour, so that you would be rewarded by the system for playing that important role in it. (c. 12:40)

“So, the idea was not to become a career officer, but to be exposed to the circles of power through your service and in that way, actually, add to the family income. But it didn’t work out.

“He did some military service, but finally just went AWOL. He just left. And his family, later, then, had to scramble and say: Well, he was sick. He wasn’t well. That’s why he’s here. He had something of a breakdown. That wasn’t the case. He was sick to death of the military life, sick to death of the discipline, the pettiness of it. In that sense, we can look to some of his personality, leading to his ideas about anarchism, about freedom, and the lack of discipline imposed imposed from above.”

C.S. SOONG: “And Marx, as I understand, he was expected, or at least his parents hoped that he would engage in the study of law. He went to the University of Bonn in Germany, where he studied law. How did that go?” (c. 13:42)

DR. MARK LEIER: “Not so well. He was more interested in writing poetry and in drinking an in dueling. You know? It’s the 19th century equivalent of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll. And so was Bakunin, of course.

“Both of them—lots of their early correspondence, letters back home saying: Trying really hard. Working really hard. I could just do better if you send me more money.”

C.S. SOONG: “[chuckles]”

DR. MARK LEIER: “It didn’t fool anybody. Both fathers respond: We sent you a pile of money. Most people could live for a year or two. You seem to have burned through it all for months. Maybe you should apply yourself more carefully.

“So, these are some of the parallels, at an early age, between the two men. And I stress the parallels because our sense of them, based only on the feuds of the First International, is that they must have been so very different. They must have been very different approaches to political and economic questions. And they really don’t. I think they have much more in common, which is not surprising, given they had similar backgrounds.

“And the similarities in their upbringings, in their educations, and in their early moves, first, into Hegelian philosophy, as a way to make sense of the world, and, then, into working class politics and left-wing politics—so very similar, that I had to stop and say: What exactly was the huge difference between them? Why couldn’t they get along? Why couldn’t they become—you know—the hottest duo in the pamphleteering world, ’til, say, Gilbert and Sullivan?”

C.S. SOONG: “[chuckles]”

DR. MARK LEIER: “Or some other famous team. You know? [chuckles]”

C.S. SOONG: “G.W.F. Hegel, an immensely influential philosopher, who, as you began to suggest, influenced Bakunin and Marx and so many other people of their generation and subsequent generations. Which ideas of Hegel’s most appealed to Marx and to Bakunin?” (c. 15:49)

DR. MARK LEIER: “Or some other famous team. You know? [chuckles]”

C.S. SOONG: “I think, to both of them, what was so appealing about Hegel is he presented for the first time the idea that change, not stasis and stability, was the human condition.

“If you think about the time, in which Hegel is writing, a time when Europe is changing so drastically, when the economies are in the middle of that shift from hundreds of years of feudalism to this new industrial capitalism that changes everywhere.

“That doesn’t sit very well, if you are a king and want to hold [power] with the divine right of kings, that says: You’re family has been on the throne forever and should be on the throne forever. So, Hegel, by suggesting it was change, that marked human history opened up a whole new world.

“[snip]

[snip] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at AGAINST THE GRAIN.

***

[Image of book cover by source used via fair use rationale for educational purposes.]

[7 JUL 2017]

[Last modified at 14:59 PDT on 15 JUL 2017]

Save

People’s Climate March 2017

29 Saturday Apr 2017

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Capitalism, Civic Engagement (Activism), Environmental Activism, Science

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Amy Goodman (b. 1957), climate change, Democracy Now!, Naomi Klein (b. 1970), Nermeen Shaikh, People's Climate March (2017)

LUMPENPROLETARIAT Today on free speech radio, we heard coverage of the People’s Climate March 2017 in Washington, D.C. as well as the conference at Howard University. During the extended broadcast coverage Naomi Klein, was one of the conference speakers. She’s the Canadian author, social activist, and filmmaker, known for her political analyses and criticism of corporate globalisation and of capitalism (or capitalist modes of production); and she’s perhaps the world’s most famous, or influential, intellectual without a degree. (She was followed by Professor Bob Bullard, who obviously does have a degree; but that’s neither here nor there.) Naomi Klein is always a captivating speaker, very charismatic. Even when one doesn’t agree with her completely, one still pays attention. In speaking about government spending to address human-induced climate change, Klein invoked raising taxes, which means she’s unaware of modern monetary theory (MMT). We must spread the word, and expand our understanding of government spending and how our money system actually works. As one heterodox economist, named by Politico one of the most influential people, Dr. Stephanie Kelton reminds us that taxes don’t pay for anything. So, it’s a actually a myth that taxes pay for federal spending.

Large political actions, such as the People’s Climate Movement 2017 in Washington, D.C. as well as other locations across the nation (or last week’s March for Science), help us take the pulse of the nation and find where we can make connections and gain new insights from one another to overcome the power of the capitalist ruling classes, which are bent on putting profits over people, even putting profits over the planet. As Naomi Klein noted in here speech, we can’t meaningfully confront the challenge of human-induced climate change without fundamentally challenging the logic of neoliberal capitalism. In Washington, D.C., tens of thousands of Americans will encircle the White House and engage in a mass sit-in to protest the climate change denialism of the Trump administration. Listen (and/or download) here. [1]

Messina

***

DEMOCRACY NOW!—[29 APR 2017]

[snip]

[Naomi Klein speech]

[Professor Bob Bullard(sp?)]

[pre-recorded interview from the field by Amy Goodman, interview with Senator Sheldon(sp?) from Rhode Island]

[Democracy Now! hosts Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh speak with participants of the march, who will encircle the White House and engage in a mass sit-in to protest the climate change denialism of the Trump adminstration]

[Chris Woolery, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, kftc.org] [09:42 PST]

[Laura Yohualtlahuiz Rios-Ramirez, a self-described “water protector” from San Antonio, on indigenous rights and climate justice] [09:46 PST]

[Jazzlyn Lindsey from Washington, D.C., representing Black Lives Matter D.C.] [09:49 PST]

[Claude Copeland, representing Iraq Veterans Against the War]

[Monique Harden, an attorney and the Co-Director of Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, on fighting environmental racism in the south] [09:59 PST]

[KPFA station identification by Pedro Reyes]

[back to AG and NS]

[Berta Caseres’ sister]

[snip] [10:25 PST]

[Medea Benjamin, representing Code Pink, CodePink.org, on President Trump’s sabre-rattling against North Korea] [10:34 PST]

[on “animal equality” and the major impact of meat consumption on climate change]

[Carla Wills reporting from the march, and speaking with Laura Jurewicz, Rockaway Youth Task Force] [10:41 PST]

[Back to Amy Goodman]

[snip]

Learn more at DEMOCRACY NOW!.

***

[29 APR 2017]

[Last modified at 17:45 PST on 4 MAY 2017]

Save

The 2017 Draft Bernie for a People’s Party Campaign

25 Tuesday Apr 2017

Posted by ztnh in Civic Engagement (Activism), Democratic Party (USA), Political Science, Presidential Election 2016, Republican Party (USA)

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Amy Goodman (b. 1957), Democracy Now!, Dr. Cornel Ronald West (b. 1953), Draft Bernie for a People’s Party (2017), The Guardian

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—Last night, as has been the case for the last several months, the corporate media ‘news’ commentators on the cable networks were falling over themselves, especially on FOX News, to rehabilitate President Trump’s reputation with dubious poll numbers arguing Trump supporters are not regretting their vote for Trump. One FOX commentator praised Trump’s military decisiveness in various military theatres. The headline at the moment is that right-wing President Donald Trump will complete his first 100 days on Saturday, 29 April 2017.

For liberals, progressives, and the left, it’s a no-brainer that President Trump’s leadership is undesirable. The left, even liberals and Democrats, are in agreement that the Trump Presidency is bad for the American people, bad for working people, bad for the working classes. Yet, to resist Trump, while a necessary imperative, is an incomplete one. And there’s little-to-no need to expend precious time, energy, and resources into belabouring every instant Trump offends the American people and or the Oval Office. That becomes a form of junk food news, a distraction from the more substantive issues and news stories. What the left, and liberals particularly, are undecided about is the role of the Democratic Party relative to the Republican Party. What the left is undecided, or divided, about is where to channel their political energies.

For a long time, the Democratic Party has been seen as the party of the working class, or at least the party, which best represents progressives values. Unfortunately, this hasn’t been true for decades, perhaps, since President John F. Kennedy. Jimmy Carter’s Presidency was milquetoast. And Clinton’s Presidency was damaging to, among other areas of society, the American economy, with his administration’s neoliberal reregulation of the financial sector. Financial regulators were laid off per Clinton’s Reinventing Government initiatives in the 1990s. In the spirit of laissez faire capitalism, the ‘big banks’ were allowed to supervise themselves. And the groundwork was laid for the Global Financial Crisis of 2008/2009.

So, it’s good that we are now hearing some rumblings among liberals and/or the left, which are calling for a rejection of the Democratic Party. That’s long overdue. This morning Democracy Now! featured an opinion article published yesterday in The Guardian by Dr. Cornel West entitled “The Democrats delivered one thing in the past 100 days: disappointment“. Hosts Amy Goodman and Juan González made sure to play devil’s advocate in the interlocution. One gets the sense that, beyond any editorial gestures toward objectivity, Goodman and González really are centrist liberals, ideologically-speaking, who are quite deeply opposed to third-party politics, or People’s Party politics, and quite deeply loyal to the Democratic Party. We observe that Democracy Now! always gives third party voices (for lack of a better term), or alternative party voices, short shrift. Those of us, who’ve tuned in to Democracy Now! over the years, can attest to the fact that their editorial slant leans heavily in favour of establishment Democratic Party types. Third Party, or alternative party, voices are only minimally covered, such as Dr. Jill Stein getting one or two appearances during the 2016 Presidential Election. But, even then, Democracy Now! avoids delving too deeply into the systemic problems with the two-party system and avoids following the logical chain of conclusions, which would lead most progressives, who are connecting the dots between many issues, to categorically reject the Democratic Party and any notions of political validity of a closed, binary, two-party system. The audience of Democracy Now! connects the dots between the various issues presented on the show, which leads them to reject the Democratic Party. Yet, Democracy Now!, itself, seems to not see those connections and continues to structure its discussions, which touch upon party politics, in such a way, which apologises for the Democratic Party and downplays or works to negate third party politics. Some have complained that Democracy Now!‘s taking money from the likes of the Ford Foundation has led them to compromise their journalistic integrity, particularly around the more controversial issues, such as third party politics and 9/11 and so on. In this particular coverage of third party politics and the new Draft Bernie for a People’s Party campaign, Goodman and González spent the entire time trying negate the third party activism being represented by Dr. Cornel West and Nick Brana, the former outreach coordinator for the Bernie Sanders campaign. Dr. Cornel West and Nick Brana were striving to promote the Draft Bernie for a People’s Party campaign to drum up support and demand for a Bernie Sanders-led opposition party. Meanwhile, Goodman and González were trying to persuade them, and the audience, that no third party will ever have a chance, and that we should all just stick with the corporate Democratic Party. And we notice, too, that, when Dr. Cornel West was doing a decent job of countering Amy Goodman’s Democratic Party apologia, Amy Goodman simply dismissed Dr. Cornel West and Nick Brana and moved on to another story. Yet, when more centrist perspectives are being espoused, Democracy Now! will stay on the story until the end of the hour; and one will hear the concern and drama in Amy Goodman’s tone, when she’s really championing an issue. It’s very subtle; but we observe the pro-Democratic Party political preference, which underlies Amy Goodman’s journalism. And it’s very disappointing, from an intellectual and free speech perspective.

But Dr. Cornel West, much to the chagrin of Goodman and González, is correct to place the emphasis of the discussion, not on the failure of past third party attempts at electoral power, but on the failure of the Democratic Party to oppose the worst abuses of the Republican Party and the Trump administration. But the Democratic Party’s failures are, perhaps, successes. It’s not clear that the Democratic Party cares at all about its constituency, as its leadership essentially cheated Senator Bernie Sanders out of a fair contest during the Presidential Primary Elections. As The Guardian‘s Trevor Timm wrote, “Everyone loves Bernie Sanders, it seems, except the Democratic Party.” Trevor Timm cited a recent poll, which showed Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, as the most popular politician in the United States. Yet, the Democratic Party consistently resists his influence, whilst working to politically contain him.

Nevertheless, we recall, Senator Bernie Sanders immediately acquiesced to Hillary Clinton’s presidential nomination, refused to cry foul despite the existing evidence, and essentially betrayed his Bernie or Bust movement. Now, there’s a call to draft Sanders into a new opposition People’s Party. But, if recent history gives us any indication, Sanders is likely to disappoint his fans. We hope not. We hope he becomes a staunch advocate for working people the way somebody like Ralph Nader has done. But that’s unlikely, if Sanders’ loyalty to the corporate Democrat Party remains as unwavering as it’s been since the day President Obama called Bernie Sanders in to his office during the primaries, after which Sanders essentially capitulated even before the Democratic Convention took place. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen. Let’s hope the United States will soon see more robust political diversity, particularly during the presidential debates, than just the political theatre of the two-party dictatorship, to which we’ve been subjected. But some of us, given recent history, have very little faith in the political sincerity of Bernie Sanders at this point. [1]

Messina

***

GUARDIAN—[24 APR 2017] The Democrats delivered one thing in the past 100 days: disappointment

Cornel West

The time has come to bid farewell to a moribund party that lacks imagination, courage and gusto

The distinctive feature of these bleak times is the lack of institutional capacity on the left—the absence of a political party that swings free of Wall Street and speaks to the dire circumstances of poor and working people. As the first 100 days of the plutocratic and militaristic Trump administration draw to a close, one truth has been crystal clear: the Democratic party lacks the vision, discipline and leadership to guide progressives in these turbulent times.

The neoliberal vision of the Democratic party has run its course. The corporate wing has made it clear that the populist wing has little power or place in its future. The discipline of the party is strong on self-preservation and weak on embracing new voices. And party leaders too often revel in self-righteousness and self-pity rather than self-criticism and self-enhancement. The time has come to bid farewell to a moribund party that lacks imagination, courage and gusto.

The 2016 election—which Democrats lost more than Republicans won—was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders was but the peak of the iceberg. In the face of a cardboard Republican candidate equipped with pseudo-populist rhetoric and ugly xenophobic plans, the Democratic party put forward a Wall Street-connected and openly militaristic candidate with little charisma.

[snip]

Learn more at GUARDIAN.

***

DEMOCRACY NOW!—[25 APR 2017] As Donald Trump approaches his 100th day as president on Saturday, his approval ratings are the lowest any president has had at this stage in generations. A recent poll by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found just 40 percent of Americans approve of his job performance so far. Trump took to Twitter to call the poll “totally wrong.” This comes as former presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has emerged as one the country’s most popular politicians. The Hill reports a Harvard-Harris poll shows 57 percent of registered voters view him favorably. Meanwhile, some former Sanders supporters have launched a movement to “Draft Bernie for a People’s Party,” urging him to start a new progressive party and run for president again in 2020. We speak with Nick Brana, the former outreach coordinator for the Bernie Sanders campaign, and Cornel West, professor of the practice of public philosophy at Harvard University. His new piece in The Guardian is headlined “The Democrats delivered one thing in the past 100 days: disappointment.”

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in Boston. Juan González is in New York.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, as Donald Trump approaches his 100th day as president on Saturday, his approval ratings are the lowest any president has had at this stage in generations. A recent poll by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found just 40 percent of Americans currently approve of his job performance. Trump took to Twitter to call the poll “totally wrong.”

This comes as former presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has emerged as one the country’s most popular politicians. The Hill reports a Harvard-Harris poll shows 57 percent of registered voters view Sanders favorably. Out of a field of 16 Trump administration officials or congressional leaders who were included in the survey, Sanders was the only one who was viewed favorably by a majority of those polled. Sanders has drawn massive crowds at stops on his recent speaking tour with new Democratic National Committee head Tom Perez as they push to reform the Democratic Party. On Sunday, Sanders spoke to Face the Nation about how the Democratic Party needs to change.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: The model of the Democratic Party is failing. We have the—we have a Republican president who ran, as a candidate, as the most unpopular candidate in modern history of this country. Republicans control the House, the Senate, two-thirds of governor’s chairs. And in the last eight years, they have picked up 900 legislative seats. Clearly, the Democratic Party has got to change. And in my view, what it has got to become is a grassroots party, a party which makes decisions from the bottom on up.

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, some former Sanders supporters have launched a movement to “Draft Bernie for a People’s Party,” urging him to start a new progressive party and run for president in 2020.

Well, for more, we’re joined by two guests. Nick Brana is the former outreach coordinator for the Bernie Sanders campaign. He has joined with former Bernie staffers and volunteers to launch the campaign. We’re also joined by Dr. Cornel West, professor of the practice of public philosophy at Harvard University. He served on the Democratic Party’s Platform Committee during the 2016 election. Now he, too, has joined the movement to draft Sanders, his new piece in The Guardian headlined “The Democrats delivered one thing in the past 100 days: disappointment.” In it, he writes, “The distinctive feature of these bleak times is the lack of institutional capacity on the left—the absence of a political party that swings free of Wall Street and speaks to the dire circumstances of poor and working people. As the first 100 days of the plutocratic and militaristic Trump administration draw to a close, one truth has been crystal clear: the Democratic party lacks the vision, discipline and leadership to guide progressives in these turbulent times.”

Professor West, Nick Brana, we welcome you to Democracy Now! Professor West, this is a point where Donald Trump is at his lowest popularity rating of any president in U.S. history at this point, as we come on the hundred days of his presidency. Talk about why you’re focused on getting Bernie Sanders to run, not as a Democrat—he’s going around the country with the head of the DNC right now—but for a third party.

CORNEL WEST: Well, I was blessed to spend some time on inside of the Democratic Party looking at the ways in which we could come up with some vision. And I was convinced that the Democratic Party was milquetoast, moribund. It lacks imagination, gusto, doesn’t have enough courage. It’s too tied to big money. The duopoly stands in the way of democracy.

Now, when Brother Nick gave me a call and said that he and the others have been coming together looking for a way of breaking the duopoly and trying to allow for poor and working people’s voices to be heard, I said, “Count me in.” And that’s why appreciate my brother that’s working. We’re trying to get Bernie and the others to jump on board.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But, Cornel, the country has had a history of third-party attempts. Mostly, the third-party candidates on the right have gotten significant support. But they’ve—on the left, we’ve seen the examples of Ralph Nader, of Jill Stein and others in the past, some of which you were involved in.

CORNEL WEST: Sure.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Why do you think it would be different this time if Bernie Sanders did take that step?

CORNEL WEST: Well, I think the Democratic Party is in a crisis now that’s quite unique. And I think that when you have somebody like a Bernie Sanders or a host of others behind him who are hungry and thirsty, and especially the younger generation—you know what I mean?—especially the younger generation, and that’s why I think, you know, Brother Nick playing a crucial role here, among the others, is what excites me, because I’m desperate—you know what I mean?—as a progressive, real progressive, not no neoliberal centrist. I’m desperate. And we’re celebrating the hundredth anniversary of Ella Fitzgerald, born a century ago. That’s freedom. Can the younger generation built on that kind of freedom? And that’s what this third party is all about.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Nick Brana, what about all those young people who were supporting Bernie Sanders and came out in armies across the country? Here he is, going around with Tom Perez, urging people to run for office through the Democratic Party, reform the Democratic Party. What’s the debate among the former Sanders supporters that you and—what your wing represents?

NICK BRANA: There is an amazing hunger for this, especially among young people. It was 91 percent of millennials, people under 29, who actually wanted a major independent choice in this past election. And the majority of Americans actually wanted it, as well, and still do—57 percent. And so, those are staggering numbers in favor of a new party.

And we’ve reached the point where, to address what you were saying earlier, is that what we’re trying to do at Draft Bernie for a People’s Party, the group that we’ve founded to get Bernie to start a new party, is fundamentally different than what the Green Party, Ralph Nader, tried to do, in that it follows a successful model in our own history of starting a major party that can displace an existing establishment party. And that is, pulling politicians who have built a large following within an old regime party, getting them to show the limits of that party and what it’s able to do, and then having them come out, start their own party. That’s exactly what Lincoln and others did in the 1850s, when they started the Republican Party. That’s how the Republican and the Democratic parties began, is when they actually reached the limits of what people were willing to tolerate—in particular, with the formation of the Republican Party, displacing the Whigs at that time over them having approved a pro-slavery platform in the 1850s, and coming out, taking that base and forming a new party. That is what we’re trying to do here again with Sanders. Sanders has the tens of millions of followers. If Bernie starts a party, that party begins with tens of millions of followers. And in my view, Bernie already built the party. He did it during the primaries. That coalition that he brought together, that’s the party. It’s just about formalizing it.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cornel West, some might say the Republican Party is in disarray, that this is a perfect time for a strong Democratic candidate, like Bernie Sanders, to run. I mean, polls show, including, I even think, one Fox one, the incredible popularity of Bernie Sanders and that he could have won—

CORNEL WEST: Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: —the actual presidential race, if he were running against Donald Trump. So, why not push for him to be within the Democratic Party?

CORNEL WEST: Well, there’s no doubt that Donald Trump devastated the Republican establishment for a few weeks. As soon as he moved to the White House, he brought them right back. He brought back Wall Street. He brought back Goldman Sachs. He brought back the billionaires. And he brought back the military-industrial complex. And so, what has happened is that a consolidation of a far, far-right wing—because let’s just be honest about it: Donald Trump, you know, he’s a gangster in character, and he’s a neofascist in the making, so he’s very dangerous.

We do support a multiracial coalition against Donald Trump, but, at the same time, the Democratic Party refuses to engage in self-examination, refuses to engage in soul searching, wants to do the same thing over and over again, keep the same personnel and leadership, and therefore the last thing we need is another neoliberal, technocratic centrist running for the Democratic Party, when the Republican Party is in trouble. And, therefore, we have to have a Bernie Sanders figure or Bernie himself or somebody—we’ve got a number of people who are thinking seriously about this—not just on the national level, but state and local levels, to say, “You know what? Poor and working people need to be put at the center, and we need a critique of militarism. Dropping all these bombs on these Muslim countries, killing innocent people with no serious accountability, that cannot stand.”

NICK BRANA: As Dr. West wrote so brilliantly, the defining feature of this time is that we do not have an opposition party. We don’t have an actual institution in which progressives can build, grow power. And looking at the lessons of the movements that have come before us, there are, for example, the Occupy movement. The Occupy movement was a quantum leap in consciousness—

CORNEL WEST: Absolutely.

NICK BRANA: —in the United States.

CORNEL WEST: Absolutely.

NICK BRANA: But it did not succeed in formalizing that power into an institution. And so, when we see all of this energy in the Women’s March, March for Science, the climate march, there’s this incredible awakening, palpable awakening, progressive awakening, but our task now, I think, is to put that into an institution, in where—where we can actually build strength. And we’re at the point where something like that could really break the two-party system.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, I’d like to ask about the—you raise the issue of other people also considering a third-party approach, because, obviously, the question becomes—a political party is not just at the top. It’s at the local level. It’s at the state level. It’s in the city councils, in the state legislatures. How do you break the hammerlock of the duopoly of these parties that, when it comes to candidates, they mobilize their forces in every county and every town to assure their candidate is victorious? How do you build that structure?

CORNEL WEST: I think when you unleash the energy of everyday people, it’s hard to know exactly who’s there. I think—I think we’ve actually gained a significant slice of the Democratic Party on the local and regional levels, because they’re critical of national leadership. They know how lethargic national leadership has been. They know how tied to big money they are. So you’ve got a number of local folk who say the only thing in town are Democrats. If a people’s party comes in, my god, they’d be open to it. But we’d get a number of other persons spilling over on not just the local, but the regional and national level. And that’s what’s exciting about what Brother Nick and and the others are doing. And I’m just proud to be a small part of this new development.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Nick Brana, the other big segment of the Democratic Party are the organized labor unions. How do you see the response of organized labor and their enormous financial clout and organizational strength on this debate?

NICK BRANA: Well, some of the labor unions actually tried to start their own party, the Labor Party, back in the ’90s. One of the, I think, lessons to learn from that is that they did not try to run candidates themselves; rather, they said, “We’re going to stay kind of within the Democratic Party model.” And that—I think we need to learn from that lesson, as well, and say, “No, this is a full party that is going to run candidates at every level.” And if Bernie were to do this—I think Dr. West is absolutely right—there would be people who would switch affiliation across the board—in Congress, at the local, state level. You would have just an amazing transition.

One of the reasons that we decided to do this was we looked—we’ve looked over the past few months at Bernie. Bernie is working furiously to change the Democratic Party, you know. And, unfortunately, what we’ve seen is that the Democratic Party is still losing supporters. That’s incredible. The most popular politician in the country cannot stem the tide. He compared it to the Titanic. Bernie compared it to the Titanic, a sinking ship, recently, the Democratic Party. And he’s right. And once you realize that people continue to leave the Democratic Party, you see that Bernie’s role is not necessarily as being able to bring people into the party. None of us can do that. People recognize that the party doesn’t represent them. Rather, what he’s doing is he’s slowing the dissolution of the party.

And if Bernie were instead—the momentum is towards an independent alternative. That’s why people are leaving the Democratic Party, even with Bernie there. If Bernie were to switch sides, join—go with the populist progressive current, the party would collapse. And that is something which would allow a genuine opposition party, progressive populist party, to arise, because right now the Democratic Party is blocking something like that from emerging.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Nick, what is Bernie Sanders’ response to this? Nick and also Professor West—you’re very close to him. What does he say about starting a third party, or even running for president on the Democratic ticket in 2020?

NICK BRANA: That’s right. So, this is something that we’re trying to convince Bernie, actively, to show him now is the time to do this. Now is when—now is when people are ready, tens of millions of people, the following that you built. You can actually bring this into a new party at the time. And that’s why I’m really excited, actually, to make an announcement on Democracy Now! and to announce that Dr. West and I would like to invite Bernie Sanders to a town hall at which we can discuss this issue and other issues facing the progressive movement. I think it’s time for the progressive movement to discuss this question openly, Amy, about whether it’s time to have an independent alternative.

When we started—when we started this process six months ago, about, after Donald Trump won the election, I don’t think if you would have asked progressives, is the—you know, in six months’ time, the party establishment is going to pick Perez, who was saying we should stick a fork into Bernie, in the narrative that he actually appeals to minorities, and actually—and be siding, voting for Trump’s nominees, and opposing overwhelmingly things like single-payer healthcare, I don’t think progressives would have said, “You know what? That’s how I think reforming the Democratic Party should be going,” and that that should be going well. And so, Dr. West and I—I’m very happy to have you, Dr. West, in inviting Bernie to that town hall, so that we can discuss this, this issue about where the movement should go.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Professor West, there has been some interesting controversy. I wanted to ask you about Senator Sanders’ support of Omaha, Nebraska, mayoral candidate Heath Mello. Sanders spoke at a rally for Mello last week as part of the Democratic National Committee unity tour. While serving in the Nebraska Legislature, Heath Mello sponsored anti-choice legislation. He was endorsed by the Nebraska Right to Life group in 2010. In an article for Rewire, Imami Gandy wrote, quote, “Bernie Sanders and many of his supporters seem perfectly content to categorize reproductive rights and abortion access as a social issue—a distraction from economic justice and reforming Wall Street, which they deem the so-called real issues. And that simply doesn’t work, because reproductive justice and economic justice are inexorably intertwined,” Imani Gandy wrote. Can you respond to this?

CORNEL WEST: No, there’s no doubt that when you talk about social issues—white supremacy, male supremacy, homophobia—these are not marginal issues. At the same time, class issues, economic justice, also militarism, imperial policies, Israeli occupation and so forth, these are all integral elements that constitute a progressive viewpoint, and therefore we ought to be critical of those who want to pull back on one set of issues and be strong on another. Same is true with our identity politics. We can talk about racism, sexism all we want. But if we don’t have a critique of Wall Street, if we don’t have a critique of militarism, if we don’t have a critique of the way in which class formation is so fundamental, and the increasing wealth inequality, then we have to be critical of each other. But it’s also true that all of us, in some sense, are going to fall on our faces. We just want to bounce back.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both for being with us. Professor Cornel West, now a professor back at Harvard University. I feel like we switched places, Cornel. You’re in New York, I’m here in Boston. I’ll be speaking at Harvard Science Center E this morning at 11:00—

CORNEL WEST: Ooh, wonderful, wonderful.

AMY GOODMAN: —as we continue our tour around the country. And thank you to Nick Brana, who is part of the Draft Bernie for a People’s Party. He is spearheading this. And we’ll continue to follow your movement at democracynow.org. Stay with us.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

[snip] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at DEMOCRACY NOW!.

***

[1] Indeed, even the political grouping itself, calling itself Draft Bernie for a People’s Party, seems Pollyannish or operating under unreaslistic assumptions, at best. At worst, this group may be a shill for the Democratic Party to continue to lend Bernie Sanders (and, therefore, the Democratic Party) credibility and relevance.

But even the group’s representative Nick Brana paraphrases Senator Bernie Sanders’ likening of the Democratic Party to “the Titanic, a sinking ship”. Yet, for some reason, Bernie Sanders is out there “furiously trying to change it” or save it, rather than defeat it electorally with a sincere opposition people’s party. Brana

He compared it to the Titanic. Bernie compared it to the Titanic, a sinking ship, recently, the Democratic Party. And he’s right. And once you realize that people continue to leave the Democratic Party, you see that Bernie’s role is not necessarily as being able to bring people into the party. None of us can do that. People recognize that the party doesn’t represent them. Rather, what he’s doing is he’s slowing the dissolution of the party.

***

Image: By U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – POTUS visits DHS, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=55465263

[25 APR 2017]

[Last modified at 10:22 PST on 26 APR 2017]

[The original content of this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to Lumpenproletariat.org. Some of the work(s), which this website incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.]

Save

Lumpenproletariat

~ free speech

Category Archives: Civic Engagement (Activism)

Divide and Conquer or Divide and Subdivide? How Not to Refight the First International (2017) by Dr. Mark Leier

People’s Climate March 2017

The 2017 Draft Bernie for a People’s Party Campaign

TRANSCRIPT

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

TRANSCRIPT

Share this:

Like this: