A major problem for the left, before, during and after, “the Wisconsin Uprising” is sectarianism, I am convinced. It undermines a basic strength. As I concluded in the past “heat and light” post: “After the fall of Communism, the strength of the left is its diversity, its turn away from dogmatism. Understanding what different actions, movements and institutions contribute is crucial.” It was with this view in mind that I read the discussions here and on my Facebook page on Chad Goldberg’s recent post. Here is a dialogue blending the two discussions.
I appreciated Vince Carducci’s Deliberately Considered comment, even though I wondered how he decided what is radical:
“This discussion is really getting to some good ideas, helping to move beyond the knee-jerk facile reactions to the recall. I think there’s value in both positions, though Henwood is more radical (which I have sympathy with) and perhaps as a result more reductive (which I don’t like so much). Chad Goldberg brings important firsthand experience into the discussion. I do think there’s another aspect to Fox Piven and Cloward’s book that he overlooks. It’s true that the legislative process was crucial to the success of poor people’s movement in the end, but the central thesis of the book is that the substantial gains are usually made *before* legislation not really in tandem. The legislative process, Fox Piven and Cloward assert, is the way in which the grassroots movements were mainstreamed and thus brought under control. So in this regard, I side with Henwood to a certain extent. However, even as a strategy of containment by the so-called powers that be, the fact that the legislative process embedded progressive ideals into the mainstream is important. Examples include: the creation of the Food and Drug Administration, fair labor laws, the Civil Rights Voting Act, and in fact the provisions of labor into what Daniel Bell termed “the Treaty of Detroit.” I’d like to suggest a framework within which both perspectives might be brought, specifically Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato’s work in Civil Society and Democratic Theory. I modify their points to get some alliteration in there as follows: The four “I’s” of social movements. The first “I” is identity, individuals “coming out” whether in terms of sexual orientation or in this case class identity. The second is inclusion, or as OWS has put it, “We are the 99%.” The third is influence, and in this case there’s no doubt that the broad trend of which Wisconsin has been a crucial part changed the discourse within the public sphere. The final one is institutionalization, which is essentially the codification of the progress, as documented by Fox Piven and Cloward, into formal norms that we call laws. It’s this crucial area, which is the realm of legislation but also regulation and judicial process, that is the most difficult to achieve. The labor movement has played a major role, though not always, in pretty much all of the progressive achievements of the last century. The failings are what Henwood is focusing on, perhaps too much. But I do think they are worth taking into account, especially his characterization of what amounts to the spoils system in American labor unions. Naomi’s graphic that illustrates this post is something we all should study. It suggests the work that needs to be done. And all of us need to participate.”
George Finch, on Facebook, also focused on the question of institutionalization of protest and its implications:
“… I haven’t read Poor People’s Movement for some time now, but their contention was that mass movements and disruptions made needed legislation possible as a way to “shut people up” to put it crudely. To say, ‘protest movements have historically been most successful when disruptive protests worked in tandem with—not as an alternative to—electoral volatility.’ is a tad misleading, specially the term “in tandem’. If anything they were saying such movements brought about change, not legislative campaigns or electoral politics. I believe Piven also notes that soon a reaction occurs and the legislation becomes watered down…This is what occurred with labor law through first the Taft-Hartley law. Unions then were more legislative orientated as many are now, and got whupped. I really can’t comment on Wisconsin as I wasn’t there, and you really have to be there to get a feel about what is the best strategy. But from my 30 years of organizing experience at different levels, a priority and one base is getting ‘people support’ and also going against the grain through creative disruptive tactics, which no doubt is tricky and to well thought out ( and not repetitive) . There are other matters and strategies as well, and the Right has been doing it very well for almost 40 years now. They are more savvy about organizing than the left or progressives and the like.”
Getting “people support” is crucial in a democracy. I, as the author of The Politics of Small Things, agree with Carducci and Finch that the creative force of direct social action and protest is crucial. But having an effect requires official action. As Vince noted there is a tension between the dangers of cooptation and the need to institutionalize change.
Bob Perillo underscores the dangers of my position. He writes on Facebook:
“Jeffrey: I respect your position, but I don’t share it, and on several levels. First, the possibilities you see, I don’t see. In fact, just the opposite. The Obama administration has engaged in a crackdown on OWS that would have had liberals shrieking had Republicans done it (coordinated arrests across the country, HR-347, the strip-search rule, etc.). OWS and other social movments may move Obama to change his rhetoric at times (particularly from now to Novemeber), but his actions against these movements are simply repugnant and indefensible. More importantly, having a Democrat with “liberal” bona fides (real or imagined) in the White House has provided corporate power with a priceless asset that openly right-wing Republican administrations have never been able to deliver: the capacity to co-opt, confuse, and demobilize social movements. At a time when global corporate capitalism is imploding, and the response of the rich is to exploit the crisis in order to force everyone else to make the kinds of concessions they could never think of demanding otherwise — that is to say, at a time when popular uprisings are not only possible but practically inevitable — the ability to demobilize social movements is critical.
Wisconsin is a prime example. The anti-war movement is another. One can only shake one’s head in morbid admiration as people who vigorously protested Bush’s warrantless wiretapping remain silent about, or actually express support for, Obama’s administration that he’s running a death squad out of the Whiter House.
It’s not that I want Romney to win. But one shouldn’t dismiss the value of actually having a “progressive” opposition to the executive branch again.”
And I agree there is value in progressive criticism. But opposition doesn’t make sense to me. I write this the day after Obama moved forward on undocumented young adults. Not perfect, but a definite advance. This and much more suggests to me that while criticism of specifics makes sense, opposition doesn’t, but I do respect Perillo’s position, as I don’t agree with it.
Jeff, my use of the term “radical” in describing Doug Henwood is in line with the second American Heritage definition: Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme. But also the third definition as a fundamental change in politics as conventionally practiced. I have sympathy with the latter and am wary of the former. This is not unlike your call for more light and less heat, I think.
The danger is in not drawing the line. I draw the line. In the cover of ‘diversity’ you conflate the ‘Establishment Left’ (Liberal) and the hard, radical left line. I don’t. That’s the danger.
Here’s how I separate them: The Establishment Left, Faux Left, Professional Left, (Liberals) will bend their views, values, desires, expectations to accommodate to a particular party or a particular candidate or event — the will make adjustments to ‘rationalize’ what has occurred and soften it up. To me, the genuine more radical left factions don’t do this: no matter who is in office, no matter the candidate, no matter which party holds office we stand true to our desires, wishes, goals, expectations and hold true to them. This is where we part ways.
Or to borrow from Doug’s title Liberals ‘sugar coat’ (cover, soften, explain away, rationalize, bend) and we don’t.
Here’s an example from the first article: “…”but it’s an insult to the tens of thousands of volunteers who made a million phone calls and knocked on two million doors in the largest GOTV effort in Wisconsin’s history”. This silly statement is suggesting that simply because the volunteers worked hard and put in (the wrong type of) effort, they are untouchable to criticism. If an employee labors excessively on the wrong task, but puts in hours of hard work — can they not be criticized? Yeah, they labored — but it was the wrong task. Same here in WI. The focus was wrong. They put a lot of effort and energy in the wrong approach. They should have redirected those efforts elsewhere — organizing rank-and-file workers into a much stronger General Strike to directly confront capital leaving Walker and the union bosses in the dust. This effort would have been much wiser and would have likely wielded different results. Instead, they labored tirelessly with the wrong strategy. I criticize that.
By the way, take note, Dr. King was an uncompromising militant.
The idea of strike action was widely discussed within the movement. A one-day public sector general strike, combined with a solid occupation of the Capitol, mass demonstrations, direct action and student walkouts could have been an inspiring launch pad for a serious strategy to defeat Walker.
However, even when faced with the dismantling of public sector unions in Wisconsin, the state-level union leadership continually shied away from strike action, diverting the movement into the ‘safe’ channel of the recall.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/722/14678/13-06-2012/wisconsin-recall-democrats-paved-the-way-for-walkers-victory
Socialist Party :: Wisconsin Recall: Democrats paved the way for Walker’s victory
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk
_________
Kim Scipes, too: “Last year, after having 5-6 weeks of massive mobilization–when over 100,000 people were in the streets at least twice in a city of approximately 220,000–and when labor leaders decided not to launch a general strike or do anything other than try to recall a bunch of politicians (ultimately, including Gov. Scott Walker), I concluded that the Wisconsin Upsurge showed unequivocally that the predominant form of US unionism–business unionism–was dead. If Labor had this level of popular support–and it did–and it’s leaders couldn’t pull the plug through nonviolent direct action OUTSIDE of established political institutions, then by turning their forces back into the established political apparatus, they had lost and provided no future for the labor movement or progressive forces.” http://www.zcommunications.org/the-failure-of-business-unionism-by-kim-scipes
Bottom line: WI should have taken much stronger direct action with labor as the center-piece, not the ballot box. That would have been a much stronger move. Instead, they folded into the system of electoral oppression where the cards are always stacked in favor of the house.
We don’t know how things would have went down in WI had the workers organized a General Strike, because they didn’t do that — but we can surmise. When workers rise up, halt, production, and shut down the economy and mechanisms of profit-making — the ruling elite capitalists get nervous. This is the strongest card to play and many are afraid to play it. Joe Burns, author of ‘Reviving the Strike’ asks a few interesting
…(con’t) questions such as: “Why is it that in the 1930’s employers were afraid of strike action — and today it’s workers who are afraid?” and, he said a friend living abroad asked him, “Why are Americans so afraid to confront capital?” There is a lot of fear. I understand that. I feel it too. But, despite the fear we must ban together, forge ahead and play the strongest card in the deck.
”Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away [or recall!] their wealth [mechanisms].” – Lucy Parsons
There was about a three week period around Feb-March of 2011 when WI workers were calling for a General Strike. I remember it clearly. A smaller number of WI workers were calling for this and it did not gain traction and I’m disappointed about that. Here’s one:
‘General Strike!’ Thousands Storm, Reoccupy Wisconsin Capitol in Response to Legislative Votes
“We’re not leaving. Not this time.” http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/10-1
And so while some were calling for a GS, the Union Bosses were saying things like this [excerpt from article, above]: Ted Lewis, a union representative for Rock Valley Education Professionals, led protesters in a cheer referring to the effort to recall the governor, in office for just two tumultuous months.
“Scott, you don’t remember me,” Lewis chanted, “but I can recall you.”
Well, as it turns out Ted Lewis (and many others) could *not* recall Walker.
The General Strike energy and momentum was tamped down by the Dems and the Union Bosses that are attached to them. Again, from March of 2011: Weighing General Strike Optionhttp://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/7054/still_weighing_general_strike_option_wisconsin_unions_map_fights_on_ma/
Yes, we agree. Thus sometimes I want to describe myself as a radical centrist.
I am still uncertain how you imagine this would be understood by the broad public, and what you think is gained by drawing strong distinctions between the hard and soft left. Certainly you maintain your purity, but you also cut yourself off and strengthen the right. You mention Martin Luther King Jr as a radical. I agree, and in this way I and Vince Carducci consider ourselves radicals. He wasn’t nearly as reluctant as you are to reach out to others with whom he had common cause even without complete agreement.