the Socialist Magazine of the Socialist Party USA Issue 4 $2.00

Transcription

1 the Socialist Magazine of the Socialist Party USA Issue 4 $2.00

2 EDITORIAL November marks my three-year anniversary with the Party. It has been an amazing and accelerated ride of learning, listening, experimenting, and taking action. One of the most critical lessons I ve learned is that we cannot move forward without understanding the past. Reading has answered many of my questions, but so have people. Longtime members such as Maggie Phair, Greg Pason, Mal Herbert, Jim Marra and David Keil have helped fill in the gaps, as have longtime activists Billy Wharton and Scott Tucker. From them, I ve learned about Party history, past challenges and triumphs in parallel movements, the significance of particular activists, the differences among Left organizations, and tactics that reached beyond the Left. Learning from and listening to these smart and experienced folks has given me a foundation for moving forward -- how important our work is, the difficulties we might face, how to work with other Left groups, and, most importantly, the value of commitment and dedication. I ve also learned an incredible amount from newer members, many of whom are in their late teens and early to mid-twenties. Their creativity, courage and willingness to learn is exhilarating and inspiring. By continuing to connect the past with the present, we can sustain and build. The past gives us a blueprint for the possibilities, but the future requires that we remain flexible, open and strategic. Every action you take to build socialism has an impact. Every act, big or small, makes it easier for your comrades -- and easier for the SPUSA to do more. Keep listening. Keep learning. Keep taking action. We are on the right path. In unity, - Lynn SOCIALIST SUMMER 2013 The Party encourages all local and state organizations as well as at-large members to adopt one of our national Socialist Summer campaigns as well as a local issues-based campaign: Youth and Student Organizing, Environmental Issues, and the 40-year Reconstitution of the SPUSA. 2 The Socialist 2013 Issue 4

3 IN THIS ISSUE 2 Editorial 4 What You ll See by Looking From the Left - by AJ Segneri 5 How The Socialist Relates to Other Left Publications - by David Keil 7 Is Marxism Still Relevant to the Left? - by Kay T. Liberato 9 Let s Meet Marisa, Kay T, Hana & Travis - by Mimi Soltysik 13 Thanks for Today - by Jen McClellan 14 Surveillance of the Left - by Pat Noble EDITOR & LAYOUT Lynn Lomibao EDITORIAL BOARD Mary-Alice Herbert David Keil Kay T. Liberato Lynn Lomibao James Marra - Convener Steve Rossignol Angela Sarlay COVER ART Jen McClellan COPY EDITING Jim Marra 1-YEAR SUBSCRIPTION RATE Individual $10, Institution $25 Bulk Rate ($25 per issue) $45 SUBMISSIONS The Socialist welcomes fresh material that highlights the struggles of the working class. This includes news, first person testimonials, all forms of the arts and letters from readers. Please limit letters to 500 words and articles to 1,250. Submit as.doc or.rtf file. CONTACT THE EDITOR Lynn Lomibao, Editor SPUSA 339 Lafayette St. #303 NYC socialistzine@gmail.com DISCLAIMER The Socialist is published by the SP-USA. Unless otherwise noted, views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily of the SP- USA. The Socialist may be re-printed with permission for non-profit purposes. 3

4 What You ll See By Looking From the Left Since the dawn of the 21st century many people have wondered what our world is going to be like in this new era. Sadly, I wish we could have a do over. The beginning of the 21st century was marked by the start of a horrible federal government administration run by neoconservatives. It was the break for Democrats to evolve into a center-right party in terms of domestic and foreign policy. Plus, our social institutions still have not handled the issues of racism, sexism, unfair wages, and damages to our natural environment. Fast forward to the present. Our world is facing huge environmental issues from depleting trees in the rainforest, people of color are still being stopped and frisked by police, and the government is creating policy to the point that if Karl Marx and George Orwell were alive today, they would say we told you so. In my opinion, the view on the Left is the only perspective from which we can gain a critical review of what is going on in our world. This perspective allows you to step back and observe what is going on. Plus, if you are an activist like me, then you know that by talking with people in their communities and neighbors things are not good. Today, our government is taking away collective bargaining rights, creating Big Brother policies, and designing an education system that is built to ruin schools in low-income areas around the country. This is a time for everyone to take a look from the Left. by AJ Segneri To have a critical analysis of what is going on. To understand from those who have told us before that things will not go well if we allow a certain group of people to control government and our communities. I am not just talking about those we have read about, such as Marx and Engels. I am talking about artists, musicians, writers, leftists religious leaders, workers, and students all people who, throughout the years, have told us to watch out and fight against those who are in control. Now we are fighting. We fought during the Arab Spring, we fought in Wisconsin and Ohio, we stood up against the XL pipeline issue, we held our ground in Montreal, and now we are fighting in Turkism Square in Turkey. From my vantage point, 2008 was the year we said we need a do over. But we need to keep fighting on issues we believe are unjust. We need to educate people that the two parties in power are not the only who can fight for people. And we need to go into communities at the ground level to beginning the healing process. My look at the Left maybe frustrating, but I will still keep fighting from the Left in order to make an impact no matter how small or big those impacts will be. AJ has been an activist since He is also the Executive Director for the Foundation for a United Front based in Chicago and Springfield, Illinois. He is also a member of the Socialist Party Illinois based in Chicago. 4 The Socialist 2013 Issue 4

5 How The Socialist Relates to Other Left Publications The Socialist is published by the Socialist Party USA and presents the platform, statements, and candidates of this party. Our readers sometimes compare it to other publications, such as The Nation, Mother Jones, Occupy papers, union newspapers, Democratic Left, Solidarity, Socialist Worker, and Socialist Action. How does The Socialist relate to other Left publications? How does it relate to the mainstream media? The Socialist Party s history goes back over 100 years. It has its distinctive program, political culture, and organizational traditions, which are different from other groups with different programs and traditions. The Nation is a liberal journal. Liberalism is a political tendency in U.S. two-party politics, which many socialists call capitalist politics. Liberals, taking the point of view of the 1%, favor making some concessions to the 99%, to the working people and other oppressed groups. For example, they favor higher tax rates on the ultrarich than on working families. They support limiting racial profiling and limiting the deportation of young immigrants. They advocate for women having some control over their reproductive lives and some gender equity in pay. Liberals wage war in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in the name of liberal democracy, not oil or empire. The framework of liberal politics is capitalist rule and U.S. supremacy in the world. A point of view often associated with both socialism and liberalism is represented by Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which publishes Democratic Left. Groups that call themselves democratic socialists look back to the history of the Socialist Party of the era of Eugene V. Debs, who received millions of votes in the 1912 to 1920 elections The set of groups calling themselves democratic socialist has at least two components in the U.S. One trend, consisting of Democratic Socialists of America and Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, consistently supports the left wing of the Democratic Party. The Socialist Party represents another democratic so- by David Keil cialist trend, which works strictly for independent political action and looks beyond the liberal reform of capitalism. The SP works for a fundamental change in social relations and the elimination of capitalist relations, which they consider to be exploitative, crisis-prone, and inclined to generate other forms of oppression, such as national, racial, and gender based. These include imperialist wars such as the U.S. wars against Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Many in the SP and other groups look to the heritage of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (Germany), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany and Poland), and Eugene V. Debs (U.S.A.), among others. Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto and organized socialist groups in Europe in the 19th century. After Marx and Engels died, a division of the socialist movement occurred between those who theorized and emphasized revolution and those who espoused a strategy of reforming capitalism. Many of those on the reformist side also supported the capitalist governments in their own countries in World War I. A broad trend of thinking that broke from the socialist parties that supported World War I calls itself Leninist, after Vladimir Lenin, a leader of the Russian Revolution of October The banner of Lenin is also raised by supporters of his associate, Leon Trotsky. The groups that look to Lenin or Lenin and Trotsky are many and divided. Probably the strongest, organizationally is International Socialist Organization (ISO), which publishes Socialist Worker. That war, and the civil war that followed the Russian Revolution, greatly embittered the differences over socialist theory and strategy. Those who advocated a revolutionary strategy denounced the crime of supporting imperialist war policies in Germany, France, Britain, Russia, the U.S., and other countries. The differences effectively split the socialist movement into two incompatible parts. In Russia, it was the Bolshevik Party that led the revolution of October This party, led by Lenin, emerged from what had been a single socialist party, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. Bolshevik means majority, and at the Second Party Con- 5

6 gress in 1903, Lenin s position had been a majority one. The Russian socialist movement had developed under the dictatorship of the Czar, an absolute monarch with a brutal secret police. The party that Lenin led had practiced strict centralism and discipline under conditions of secrecy and frequent arrests of activists. After the Russian Revolution, the Bolshevik leaders together with others organized a new international party, called the Communist International, using the same strict centralism as before, or stricter. The SP of the U.S. supported the Russian Revolution and debated whether to join the CI. The SP split in 1919, with harsh words on both sides. In the early 1920s, contending U.S. groups sought to join the CI after the split in the SP. In pressing their cases for sole membership in the CI, the U.S. Communist groups used vicious language against each other. On two separate occasions, two CI groups existed in the U.S., both called Communist Party and both publishing a magazine called The Communist. Both used the strongest terms to denounce the SP as well as each other. From here comes the U.S. tradition of Socialists and Communists ( Leninists ) attacking each other or at best ignoring each other, never working together. Following the pattern of the CI, the Leninist groups structured themselves in centralized ways, using the term democratic centralism to describe their structures. They each set a permanent goal of political homogeneity and required that their members accept not only a program but also a theory and an account of the history of their movement. It became routine for such groups to split apart as soon as any serious political differences arose. At best, splits occurred frequently after one side in a debate lost and the other won. Among the groups that call themselves revolutionary, Communist, or Leninist, the main division has been between those that stayed loyal to Moscow in the period of Stalin and those that followed the leadership of Leon Trotsky, who lived in Mexico in the 1930s and was murdered by an agent of Stalin in Unlike the groups that espouse Leninism, the SP organizes itself as a multi-tendency group. Members may express their personal views and carry on their political activities mostly as they please, within broad limits. The party decides on its platform, candidates, and public activities by majority vote, with parity in leadership bodies and administrative offices for women and men. It does not require strict discipline of its members or use tight forms of centralism. In that sense, it is different from the groups that call themselves Leninist. The above may help to explain how The Socialist differs from liberal publications, publications of DSA and similar groups, and publications of groups that identify themselves as Leninist. DAVID is a Massachusetts SP member who belongs to the Editorial Board of The Socialist. In the past he has belonged to the Socialist Workers Party and Democratic Socialists of America. He is active in Boston-area antiwar groups, including the United National Antiwar Coalition. He teaches computer science and belongs to a National Education Association affiliate. I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence. Eugene Victor Debs MAGGIE PHAIR The Future of the Left? I m still here! 6 The Socialist 2013 Issue 4

7 Is Marxism Still Relevant to the Left? A Brief Interpretation of Marxism by Kay T. Liberato As a Marxist or revolutionary socialist, I believe that it is important to think of Marxism as a family. We share a common lineage, but there are different variations within and we don t all agree on interpretation. But we are all committed to revolutionary socialism, which is the belief that all capitalist social relations must be transformed in order achieve true human freedom. It is common to hear people colloquially refer to Marxism as an ideology. Marxism is not an ideology. An ideology is a set of beliefs designed to justify and reproduce existing social practices. An ideology develops after the practices develop in order to maintain some adherence to what is in existence. Furthermore, an ideology is uncritical since its purpose is to marginalize alternative ways of thinking and being. Ideologies are based on reality but are distorted since they do not consider all vantage points. Ideologies are inherently contradictory since they are developed in order to deny people the possibility of critical thinking and, thus, the opportunity to develop criticism of existing struggle. For example, liberalism is an ideology since it is based on the myth of individualism and the logic that through hard work all people can succeed. This is an ideology because it is contradictory. In a liberal economy (capitalist economy), some must be at the bottom in order for others to be at the top. The whole notion of upward mobility and middle class status is predicated on disparity and exploitation. In other words, the notion of progress, success, and freedom in liberal society is based on climbing up by standing on the backs and heads of others within a particular society and across the larger human society. Leninism is a Marxist-inspired ideology. Leninism is an ideology because it attempts to achieve working-class empowerment and freedom through methods and organizational strategies that would deny people the possibility of becoming empowered. Furthermore, Leninism tries to transpose Bolshevik practices on communities of people without considering the cultural-historical development of existing social conditions in which people live and struggle. There are also those who subscribe to a post-marxist ideology that devalues theoretical questioning and strategic action. Instead, they argue for small-scale local politics based on immediate needs only. These ideologies reproduce the current political and economic structure. Each fails to adequately pattern their organizational and activist approaches according to the cultural-historical realities of the oppressed. I have already stated what Marxism is not. The question then is what is Marxism? Marxism is a worldview. A worldview is a theoretical framework (a collection of theories that do not contradict each other) with a particular method and rationale of questioning (mode of inquiry/questioning). Marxism is not one theory; it is many different theories about different aspects of human existence. The different theories are Marxist in that they correspond to and are based on the mode of questioning and concept development (conceptualization). A theory is nothing more than a plausible explanation based on careful systematic observation and reflection on what we see, hear, smell, and feel and its relation to other things in our lives. For example, there are Marxist theories of education, race/racism and gender. They are based on Marxist principles. I will not attempt to talk about all of the Marxist theories in existence. Instead I want to focus on the essence of Marxism. There are three major pillars to Marxism: dialectical methodology, historical materialism, and socialism. Dialectical methodology is the way every social structure and practice is examined. The principle here is that all human relationships are dialectical, which means the relationship is not direct. A does not equal B. Instead, A and C are related because of a shared relationship with another intermediate relationship, or a common dimension, B. So, A and C are related because they both share a common internal property, which is called B. Together A, B and C form one social relationship called ABC. Let s use the categories of woman and man. A non-dialectical logic would say a woman is a woman because a woman is not a man. One would then continue to list biological distinctions. However, Marxists would argue that while there are biological differences between males and females, the concept of who and what man or woman is, is socially constructed through institutional practices. A man is not a woman, because of the historical economic power, political rights, and cultural privileges bestowed upon males. By definition, in a capitalist society, which is at its roots both patriarchal and racist, a man is privileged over a woman: A (man) is related to C (woman) by B (past and present cultural-historical institutional practices of exploitation and disempowerment). In sum, the dialectical method assumes that what we see clearly is only part of the relationship. The other part of the relationship is concealed and must be uncovered in order to get at the truth. 7

8 Historical materialism is the Marxist theory of how societies are developed and structured. As explained previously, all societies are based on human activities, which mediate each other. The word material does not only refer to money or economics in the narrow sense. Material is another way of saying that which is necessary and central to all human existence. For example, health, nutrition, housing, our bodies and our senses, our physical capabilities and our psychological and mental faculties are material. For Marxists, history refers to the particular social processes through which human existence and society develop over time and space. For example, the history of American capitalism may focus on British colonialism, which includes enslavement of Africans through the particular practices of chattel slavery in the U.S. south. From there, we can look at the explosion of the northern industrial cities through the very low cost of slave-produced cotton. At the same time, political-legal developments treated Black people as less human and facilitated the exploitation of Blacks. Along with economic exploitation buttressed by government policies, a white supremacist cultural structure developed which reinforced the political structure and promoted a consensus among the white working and the white capitalist -- class that Blacks and ethnic minorities are inferior. This is also reinforced by economic and political practices that create the objective evidence of such through denial of dignified living circumstances. Historical materialism is, thus, a framework for understanding how we got from one point in time to the present, in such a way that we can consider the ways to change it. The core assumption of historical materialism is everything that exists today has its roots in systematic practices of the past, and those past practices drive the present. Therefore, in order to change the present we have to understand the mechanism through which present conditions came to be. Revolutionary/Auto-Emancipatory Orientation The final pillar of Marxism is its auto-emancipatory (self-emancipatory) orientation. This, ultimately, is what distinguishes Marxism from other socialist theories. Many socialists focus on the redistribution of financial wealth through taxing the rich and nationalization of industries and schools. Among democratic socialists, it is popular to call for cooperatives and democratic workplaces as part of a democratic revolution. Marxism distinctively argues that revolution requires the end of capitalist social relations. That means replacing those relations with new ones that have a different goal in mind. The purpose of work must be radically different from today s purpose. Today, we work in order to produce profits for our employer, and we work to accumulate money in order to secure our existence and more. The Marxist perspective holds that we have to create social practices and forms of work that satisfy human needs, among which are joy and wellbeing. The motive for work must go beyond survival and the need for money. Lastly, the auto-emancipatory orientation of Marxist socialism holds that only the oppressed -- the exploited -- can liberate them in a revolutionary way. This doesn t mean that people not considered to be members of the working class cannot join the cause of the working class. The point here is that one can, as Amilcar Cabral said, commit class suicide and work in solidarity with working-class people for working-class goals, from the vantage point of the working class. What this means is that one must struggle with the most oppressed groups in society to establish conditions of justice for them as well as everyone else in society. The revolutionary orientation in Marxism is not about an apocalyptic fight between the forces of good (the proletariat/working class) and the bourgeoisie (capitalist class). This is all metaphor. In reality, class struggle is a long process filled with stops and starts. Marx s dialectical revolutionary perspective is not just about transforming social institutions. To transform an institution is really to transform the consciousness of people. Consciousness does not just mean the way we think, it means the things we aspire to be -- the ideals we hold close -- and that which motivates us each day. In reality, every institution functions according to the will of the people within them and the implicit and explicit consent of the general public. The goal of class struggle is to transform the consciousness of the working class from ideals and practices that support and reinforce capitalism, a system of exploitation organized and structured by racism and patriarchy. This requires that we convince people that another world and way of existing is possible. It also requires that we teach each other to fight together, plan together, and build power together. Because the foundation of capitalism is the interlocking systems of racism (exploitation and ideological misrepresentation on the basis of race ) and patriarchy (exploitation and ideological misrepresentation on the basis of biological sex and sexuality), class struggle requires that we struggle against patriarchy and racism in order to build working class solidarity and build a socialist society. KAY T. is a Black Revolutionary/Radical Humanist of Dominican, Puerto Rican & Cuban descent. He is a working-class community organizer in Philadelphia and a Ph.D candidate studying Social Movement Theory and researching social movement practice and building. 8 The Socialist 2013 Issue 4

9 Let s Meet Marisa, Kay T, Hana and Travis by Mimi Soltysik When I was approached to put something together that was focused on the future of the Left for The Socialist, it seemed highly appropriate to reach out to some of the younger Party members who, I felt, would be playing a key role in what the future might look like. I tend to believe that I ll learn a bit more from what I m about to hear as opposed to what I m about to say. I posed a handful of questions to Marisa Ilene Mejia from Boise, Kay T. Liberato from Philly, Hana Rose from L.A., Irina Terdiman from NY, and Travis Dicken from Ligonier, PA -- five intensely bright, compassionate and insightful young people who joined the SPUSA to find out how they felt about gender roles, a vision for the future and social media. Perhaps my greatest joy since joining the SPUSA has been the incredible opportunity it has given me to learn about community. I feel incredibly fortunate to belong to a community with folks like the five who agreed to this interview. Enjoy! MS: Why socialism? Marisa: I believe in the abolition of private (not personal) property, in the power of unions, and in absolute freedom for all people. My heart has and always will lie with anarchism, but, of course, socialism, in its purest form, is inherently anarchical, and the two are inextricably linked. Kay T: Growing up, I was no stranger to the ideas associated with socialism. Most of my father s family had been involved in social movements in Latin America. And all of them were part of feminist and socialist movements in Dominican Republic, Cuba, Chile, and Brazil. So, I never had an aversion to socialism it was just normal concept a set of ideas. When I lived in New York I lived in the south Bronx and Washington Heights. In the 90s, these were very poor workingclass neighborhoods. But just to be clear, I say poor working class because I don t associate poverty with being working class. Those neighborhoods are still predominantly Latino, and are struggling with poverty. But gentrification has begun. The same situation was in North Philadelphia. I moved to the Fairhill-Norris Square section of city in the late 90s. This section of the city is 90% Latino with a 60% poverty rate. I loved living in these three places. They hold a very deep and powerful place in my heart. But growing up, I remember seeing where white middle-class and rich people lived. I remembered playgrounds and baseball fields that were always cropped and free of glass, and other things. And I remember people having all of their teeth, nice clothes, shoes, and private swimming pools. In the rich neighborhoods, people talked and laughed with the police. In my neighborhood we didn t have supermarkets nearby. And when we would go to a market after taking two buses, those markets had poor quality food that would make you sick. And the pipes in the houses where I lived were bad. So, the water wasn t drinkable. These were all the observations that I made when I was young. I knew how the white middle-class and the rich lived, because my dad and mom cleaned their homes, watched their children, fixed their four-car garages, and organized their offices. As I got older, I wanted an explanation why these disparities existed in every city throughout the world. My dad gave me his copy of Marx s Critique of Political Economy and Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of They served as the basis of my understanding for the exploitation of working-class peoples. I still didn t consider myself a socialist until after I graduated from undergrad. I studied sociology with a minor in economics and bio-behavioral health. And I was very interested in the intersection of human health, social structure, and economic policies. I found that all over the world that class matters. I found that class was not just one s circumstances. Class position means power and that power shapes the way society works from the macro-level all the way down to the psychological, physical, environmental, and inter-personal health of individuals. 9

10 During the 2008 presidential campaign, I was a very big Barack Obama supporter. Not only was he the first brown presidential candidate that could win, he talked about change from the bottom up. For me, this had to be something other than capitalism, since that s what we had. And the right called him a socialist. And I knew that the right was absolutely procapitalist. So, with my little knowledge of the political dynamics in this country, I felt that Obama could have been socialistic. During that time, I also began an intensive research process to learn about socialism and the U.S. labor movement. And that s when I put together my overall socialist worldview. By 2009 I had completely become a Socialist or a Marxist to be precise. I guess you can say I came to Marxism through social science and experience, and not because I like the ideas. I just found it to be the best way of understanding power and the potential for creating a better world. In a sense, the Obama campaign helped me become more aware of my socialist views. And today, he s convinced me of the imperative to organize; the sake of the world depends on it. In fact, I believe humanity can t take much more. Hana: I think that necessities, such as education and healthcare, shouldn t be parceled out to those who can pay a higher price, or to those who are able to outsource vital functions, such as going to other countries for surgery or sending children to exclusive private schools. Travis: Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in Of the Social Contract that Man was born free, yet everywhere is in chains. That really resonated with me. I always sought the political ideology I felt would enable people with the greatest freedom. I considered myself a libertarian for years because that movement talks a good game about freeing people from government. However, when I got a little older and really thought about the world around me, it struck me that government had merely become a tool used by large, powerful private interests to protect themselves from the competition that capitalists trumpet and to trample on the rights of others. I think that democratizing the workplace and empowering workers with greater wages, education, and standards of health care will do more to liberate the common man and woman than anything else. MS: Why did you decide to join a socialist organization? What sort of support do you have from friends and family with regards to your choice? reasons: 1) Our power is greater when we are united, and 2) Our knowledge and intelligence grows when we have the opportunity to discuss our beliefs. My family has politely disconnected from my political beliefs, but my friends are radical (as I am), and support me completely. Kay T: I joined the Socialist Party USA after meeting Billy Wharton in I had been reading his tweets and blog posts and he helped me to see that President Obama and the Democratic Party were nothing more than segment of the capitalist class that believed in exploiting in less ugly ways. Mr. Wharton s pieces were always written in a way that could level with me about what was going on in the mainstream, and then show how it was really working against the working class. This was particularly true of the health care reform legislation. I guess it was his nuanced approach. I would have never joined a socialist organization if not for him. My family and friends are all Leftists. So, they support me being in the Socialist Party. Most of them wonder why it took me so long. They know I generally scrutinize everything for a long time before I actually join in I m a skeptic. The ultimate reason I joined the Socialist Party is because I believe it is important for socialists to organize among themselves in order to organize among the broader public. Organization is the basis for any type of movement. Without organization there is no foundation. And with no foundation there can be no power. Power is, after all, the relative organizational strength and capacity of one group versus another. We have to out-organize the oppressor. Hana: I think after I stopped being so afraid to be open about my beliefs, I joined the Socialist Party USA. There is no point in just believing in something if you re not willing to agitate politically. Since joining, everyone I know has asked me questions, and shown an interest in why I ve joined. Travis: I joined the SPUSA because I met a couple of people who were part of it and I really enjoyed talking to them. They were the kind of people that represented the leftist change I wanted to see in society, instead of the white, bourgeois college dorm room liberalism that permeates so many other Left groups. That lead me to look through the party platform, and finding myself in agreement with the majority of it, I joined the party. As for family and friends, I have limited support from them, being that many are distressingly conservative, but my mother and a few others were incredibly supportive of my decisions and ideologies. Marisa: I decided to join a socialist organization for two 10 The Socialist 2013 Issue 4

11 MS: Given the advent of social networking and the role its played in recent peoples movements worldwide, how do you think it can be used to advance a socialist movement in the U.S.? Marisa: Again, we are stronger when we are united, and social networking does that better than almost anything else. But in many ways it is also dangerously superficial. Oftentimes, it gives comrades a false sense of involvement when, in reality, they are forgetting what they can do to fight. Kay T: As I mentioned previously, I learned about the Socialist Party through online social media. So, I think the web can be a potent medium for sharing critical knowledge for building a new society. But there is a caveat: It cannot replace face-to-face organizing. Real solidarity requires us to be with each other corporeally. This physical element is a vital part of human communication. It s what allows us to connect on a deeper level, because solidarity is more than statements of agreement. It means being willing to share the same physicalmaterial space and time. For online social networking to be optimal, I think we have to really know how to reach different groups of people. And that s beyond my scope of knowledge. I do want to make a note that there is a digital divide. Many working-class people do not use the Internet. And if they do, they use it differently from middle-class people. Technology itself is mostly about potential. But technology use is based on experiences and cultural history. So, it may be used in a different ways for different things. Look at how people use Twitter and Facebook. Some use it for global news. Others use it to see sports updates and celebrity updates. Others use it just to vent and share their personal experiences. For social networking to be useful, it has to consider all of this. Hana: People can meet and interact with others who are more socially aware of what s actually going on, which can lead to support for a particular movement. In countries that have recently experienced a people s movement, such as Brazil, social networking allows more unity between people and organization[s]. I think in the United States, it could lead to increased support for the Socialist Party USA. Travis: Good question. I would say that the best bet we have for the use of social networking is for your average, everyday Socialist to get educated about socialist ideas and solutions, find good counter-arguments against capitalism, and to express those ideas while welcoming good-natured debate. You may never convince the person on the other end of the Internet, but if you make a good case and avoid the name-calling pitfalls of online arguments, you have a pretty good chance of convincing the people involved. It helps to put a human face to an ideology that has been unfairly tarnished by the Red Scare of years past. Documenting abuses of capitalist power and the inequality and inhumanity [that] our current system creates also provides a powerful argument for socialist change. MS: Are you satisfied or comfortable with the role that women have been playing in Leftist activism? Marisa: In the SPUSA, yes, I am satisfied with the role women play. But in Leftist groups in general? No. There has, unfortunately, been a trend in recent years of men who hold the class struggle above all other struggles without pausing to realize that ALL struggles are linked and the abolition of one kind of oppression is not possible without the abolition of all kinds of oppression. They marginalize women, transgender people, queer people, and people of color while defending their actions with outdated political theory. Of course, theory has its place, but theorists themselves were not free of their own prejudices. Kay T: This is an interesting question. I don t think the question is a question of comfort with the role women and ethnic minorities play in Left activism. For me the question is how open is the Left to ethnic working-class minorities and women. The U.S. Left has traditionally been predominantly white and male. And there have been parallel and at time intersections between ethnic minorities and women with the dominant Left. We can look to the radical elements of the Civil Rights Movement, the Chicano, Puerto Rican Independence Movement, Women s Liberation Movement, and Black Radicalism during the Harlem Renaissance. But the white Left or dominant Left never fully embraced those struggles as its own. Ethnic minorities and women participated in the dominant Left, but their causes were generally marginalized. To be honest, I don t think this has changed much. Today, perhaps in the past as well, the Left is not only predominantly white and male, it is also heavily middle class, and its perspective on what needs to be done, how to organize, and what issues are most important reflects a white middle-class perspective. Sexism within the Left is entrenched. People support women s rights in the legal-liberal sense, but in the more radical/ 11

12 revolutionary sense they continue to support sexism and patriarchy in everyday practices, organizational practices, and the discourses they use as well as the inattention to the various ways women are objectified and exploited. This is even more the case with ethnic minorities, which includes women of color. Most of the time when Leftists do engage issues of gender equality they do not consider the particular forms of oppression that affect women of color. For example, we are fierce advocates of the right to have an abortion. But little is said about the right of the poor and Brown to procreate. Many Leftists will talk about why the poor and the Brown should not procreate because they do not have the financial means to support a child. We call this being irresponsible. We ought to advocate the right for people to have healthy children just as much as we defend the right to not have children. Hana: Very much so. There is both an autonomy and unity that women in the Left have, despite the overwhelming patriarchal influence on women in leftist activism. Travis: Yes and no. I think that that women and minorities [who] are active within the Leftist movement have been incredibly impassioned and inspired and have done great work for the cause, but I find it distressing that more women and minorities aren t active within the movement. I think it has to do with a couple of different factors. One is that, sadly, activism is a luxury for many people. It s hard to feel like hitting the streets or engaging others in debate if you are working three jobs just so you can be broke at the end of the month, which is a position that far too many young single mothers find themselves in. I think a powerful message we could send is in a Socialist society, not only would the overworking and underpayment of women be addressed, it would be downright unacceptable. MS: The Socialist Party USA strives to establish a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society. Briefly tell us what that means to you. Marisa: Our differences must be celebrated, not ignored -- assimilation is not liberation. We must strive to work together, and to acknowledge the beliefs of all people involved--especially those that we don t understand. And we must work, in our own lives, to fight oppression in every way possible. Kay T: For me this means we engage in political, economic, and cultural/educational struggle to assure that physical difference is not seen as negative. It means struggling for a society where patriarchy no longer exists, which means heterosexuality is no longer privileged. Lastly, a classless society means a truly a revolutionary democratic society in which no individual, group of individuals, or institutions (government, etc.) can exploit another. It means the end of the capitalist divisions of labor between the worker and the one who profits, the teacher and student, and the citizen and the one who makes policy. Hana: It means a gradual movement that tries to eliminate the current patriarchal structure in which men dominate and benefit. It means a society that tries to remove Anglo-male supremacy from controlling every aspect of our lives, from the political, personal, and economic spheres. Travis: It means that we would finally live up to the promise of freedom and equality that this nation was founded upon. It s certainly taking us long enough, but I m in it for the long haul. MS: In your mind s eye, how does the transition to socialism in the U.S. pan out? Marisa: This is a tough question. But to keep it simple, we cannot work within the present system. We must decentralize and start over. We must accept sacrifice in order to stop the insanity and cruelty of capitalism. And most importantly, we have to start giving a damn about one another. Liberation is impossible without compassion. Kay T: To me, there is only one real approach to socialism and that is the revolutionary approach. What I mean by revolutionary approach is not the same as those who equate revolution with taking to the streets. What I just mentioned is a tactic. But the revolutionary approach is a strategy. The revolutionary strategy and perspective is the same as Marxist socialism. But let me be clear about this. I am in no way saying a person has to consider his or her self a Marxist or even agree with all of Marxism. In fact, Marxists generally don t agree with each other. But what we do agree on is that revolution means transformation of the actual relations of production the relations of being, acting, thinking and organizing. In a capitalist society, relationships are all organized vertically, so that the level above exploits the one below and so on, creating a multiplex of oppression and exploitation. Some reformist Socialists believe we can just improve economic distribution and have more democratic and cooperative workplaces. But this is not enough. The Marxist/ revolutionary vision demands that democratic social relations exist in schools and community governance as well. In 12 The Socialist 2013 Issue 4

13 addition, the goal of governance, work, education, etc. is to promote human health/sustainability, freedom, and joy. Furthermore, this revolutionary perspective considers democracy to be a state of social being, not a specialized ritual. This transition starts from the bottom. It starts with people educating each other to reveal the roots of oppression and possible alternatives. It requires people to practice standing up for their rights and demanding the recognition of more fundamental humanistic rights through building social movements. It also requires prefigurative work in which people build the types of society on small scales within this one right now. But they have to do all of this, because prefigurative formations will succumb to capitalist domination if we do not actively and aggressively pursue the end of capitalist social relations. A community garden is wonderful until a large developer comes in and takes the land to build condominiums for the rich. In short, we have to build power and displace capitalism. There is no other way. Hana: I think with an increased emphasis on improving societal structure, there would be a greater presence and support for the Socialist Party USA and socialism in general. With campaigns like the Wipe Out Student Debt letter writing campaign, we will slowly draw in more and more people with demands for socialized programs. Travis: I think it will be a long, imperfect, and occasionally literal fight, but I think it will primarily be achieved through the growth of alternatives to the current corporate business model, through working people being sick of a system that is intended to drive them into debt, through people seeking education about the world around them outside of the corporate controlled classrooms and media sources, and through the demanding of equal rights in pay, marriage, and legal protection for all. I think that as more and more people begin to look around them and think Something about this isn t right, we could do better, the Leftist movement in general and the socialist movement in particular will grow -- particularly if the Democratic party continues to do an ever poorer job of pretending to be the party of the working class. No worries about that aspect, personally. MIMI is the Male Vice-Chair of the Socialist Party USA and am the State Chair of the Party in California. He loves his family, his cats, his comrades, and loud music. He also likes to laugh. A lot. He has quite a few tattoos, and refuses to hide who he is and where he stands. Thanks for Today by Jen McClellan My eyes open to take in the light of a bright, whiteclouded sky and already my heart is racing I am excited to wake up today Though that has not always been the case I have not always been willing to get up and go To work Or go about my day like a robot adhering to a schedule Simply because I knew I needed to be doing certain things At certain places By certain times Or the money wouldn t come Or my responsibilities would not find themselves fulfilled But today! Oh, wow. Today when I opened my eyes I realized I am happy to wake up Because these are no longer promises I must keep to satisfy a corporation that spits out paychecks No these are promises I ve made to my friends Friends who are carrying out similar goals for me Friends who have sat beside me on a warm summer day Eating pot luck with me And proclaimed that they too believe in humanity So maybe what I see when I open my eyes now is hope Hope that we, average, everyday, forgotten, trampled, workers Are not alone in feeling subhuman In feeling abused In feeling sullen about our home country, but mostly We are not alone in wanting to work towards a positive change That is what I see when I awake today I am not alone Others are now waking to see this sky Today I get to fight for them Read and learn for them Go out and work for them And they for me Today is not for profit It is for people Today is the most enlightening awakening, Comrades Thank you for today. 13

14 Surveillance of the Left by Pat Noble You are being spied on. When you organize for an upcoming demonstration, you are being spied on. When you call, , or text message other activists about an upcoming demonstration, you are being spied on. When you attend a demonstration, you are definitely being spied on. Even after you go home following a demonstration, and you are engaging in everyday activities that are not related to radical politics and activism, you are being spied on. As Socialists, this is our reality. Is this really our reality, or merely a shade of it? It is possible that we are not being spied on specifically, or at least not all of the time. How are we to know either way? Surveillance of radical politics is nothing new. Every government and regime in history has attempted to contain its hard-lined opposition in one form or another. Let us remember that many of these governments and regimes not only failed to do so but are no longer in existence as a result. We should always assume that we are being watched, and act accordingly. I do not know how many comrades have expressed this to me over the past few years of my involvement in radical politics, but I truly appreciate it every time I hear it. However, the question of how we should act in response to government surveillance is a matter of debate. The information released by individuals like Edward Snowden have made cracks in the outer wall of the Empire that are large enough to peek through and catch a glimpse of the system s inner mechanics. For many working-class people, this has both confirmed old fears and created new ones. Fear is what the capitalist system needs to survive, and a lack of fear is what will suffocate it. After all, fear is a very powerful motivator to force people to work against their best interests. The government counts on us not only being afraid of what we know they 14 The Socialist 2013 Issue 4

15 can do, but also what we believe they are capable of. Fear of the surveillance state exists both in the socialist movement and in the working class as a whole. To pretend otherwise for the sake of looking tough and revolutionary serves no purpose. The fear exists that we are always being watched by the government. More importantly, the fear exists that the government can spy on us at will. I make this distinction because fear of action and fear of the possibility of action are different and should be understood separately. As I see it, there are two options that we can pursue. The first involves us retreating from radicalism and joining forces with the center-left reformists that seek to change the system from within. After all, what purpose would it serve to monitor the activities of political moderates that are content with getting in line when asked, so long as they do not feel directly threatened by the government? The second option, which I believe in, is to turn towards the fire and accelerate forward. The surveillance state has expanded far beyond the radicals. In today s society, everyone can expect to be monitored. Especially when there is nowhere to retreat to, there can be no retreat from our beliefs and ideals. If the capitalist class chooses to have its government spy on us all, so be it. Not only will it not help their cause but it will also hurt it. The exponential expansion of the surveillance state has brought it into clear focus for the vast majority of the working class. Between the growth of spying on the general population, and the sharp rise of racial profiling, it is extremely disturbing to think that people of color can expect to be closely watched, both in public and in the so-called privacy of their homes. Imagine, for a moment, that the government actually used its ocean of collected data to move against the masses. This act, which would seemingly shore up support for the capitalist regime, would instead push it towards oblivion. It is important to remember that, as with everything else in this society, the surveillance state exists because the masses have not united and demanded otherwise. The so-called middle class, which is no more than adequately paid workers that have been blinded by false promises of wealth and prosperity, has been spoonfed the notion that surveillance exists for our own protection, and therefore we must defend it. If the government were to move against the masses, these well-paid workers would no doubt see some of their own disappear into the surveillance machine. Solidarity between workers will deny the capitalists of the mass fear and middle class support they need to keep their system alive. As Socialists, how can we combat the capitalists without giving their government the ammunition to crush our movement? The answer lies in our ideas, and how we convey them to the masses. We all recognize that socialism is the ideology of working class liberation, and the ideas that stem from it are based on democratic control of the means of production. We represent these ideas in our activism, and in turn, these ideas represent us. How we convey socialism to the masses is the key to breaking the surveillance state. If we immerse ourselves in socialism to the point where it is part of us, and if we present these ideas to the overall working class in such a positive way that any attack on socialist ideas is an attack on them, then the surveillance state loses its power over us all. The capitalists will be unable to directly act against us without directly acting against the masses, and they cannot do that without risking their way of life. Above all, we must remember that our aim is for a mass movement to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a new system of democracy, equality, and solidarity. As we organize and the snowball effect begins, surveillance on our activities will become less and less relevant. The masses control the survival of government surveillance and the capitalist system, and their collective move towards a new society will cause the collapse of the old system and its creations. Let the capitalists and their puppet government listen to us. If they listen closely, they will hear the floodgates preparing to open. PAT is an elected member of the Board of Education in Red Bank, New Jersey, a member of the Monmouth County Local, and the Treasurer of the Socialist Party USA. 15

16 ARIZONA Socialist Party of Southern Arizona CALIFORNIA Socialist Party of California PO Box Los Angeles, CA Bay Area Socialists 518 Holly Oak Lane Alameda, CA Socialist Party of Los Angeles 2617 Hauser Blvd. Los Angeles, CA CONNECTICUT Socialist Party of Connecticut c/o 342 Westchester Rd. Colchester, CT ILLINOIS Chicago Socialist Party PO Box Chicago, IL INDIANA Greater Indianapolis Socialist Party c/o John Strinka Green St. Carmel, IN MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN Socialist Party of Michigan PO Box Detroit, MI Detroit Socialist Party PO Box Detroit, MI NEW JERSEY Socialist Party of New Jersey PO Box 457 Red Bank, NJ Socialist Party USA National Directory Northern New Jersey Socialist Party PO Box 3056 Memorial Station Upper Montclair, NJ Socialist Party of Greater Monmouth and Ocean Counties PO Box 457 Red Bank, NJ NEW YORK New York State Socialist Party 339 Lafayette St. #303 New York, NY Socialist Party of New York City 339 Lafayette St. #303 New York, NY Socialist Party of Central New York PO Box University Station Syracuse, NY OHIO Socialist Party of Ohio PO Box Lakewood, OH Socialist Party of NE Ohio PENNSYLVANIA Socialist Party of Allegheny County c/o 725 S. Negley Ave. Apt. 9 Pittsburgh, PA Socialist Party of Philadelphia PO Box Philadelphia, PA TENNESSEE Memphis Socialist Party PO Box Memphis, TN memphissocialist@yahoo.com memphissocialists.blogspot.com TEXAS Socialist Party of Texas c/o 4202 Bluffpoint Rd. Rowlett, TX spoftexas@sbcglobal.net Partido Socialista de Valle c/o 1012 West Warren St. Pharr, TX sprgv@sbcglobal.net Socialist Party of Dallas/Fort Worth c/o 4202 Bluffpoint Rd. Rowlett, TX socialistparty.dfw@texas.usa.com UTAH Wasatch Socialist Party VERMONT Brattleboro Area Local 71 Westminster Rd. Putney, VT VIRGINIA Socialist Party of Central Virginia c/o 418 Fairway Ave. Charlottesville, VA spvirginia@comcast.net WISCONSIN Socialist Party of Wisconsin 1001 East Keefe Milwaukee, WI Socialist Party of Milwaukee County 1001 East Keefe Milwaukee, WI Socialist Party of South Central Wisconsin c/o David Williams 404 S. Park St. #2 Madison, WI SPUSA NATIONAL OFFICE 339 Lafayette St. #303 New York, NY (212) natsec@socialistparty-usa.org