by Saturn

There are a lot of people aching for some kind of Left unity right now, and different people proposing different ways of going about it. It’s true that, rather than being just a broad organization that lets anybody in or welcomes absolutely any perspective, CUSP (Campaign for a United Socialist Party) does have a somewhat specific approach to the problem. I think CUSP’s approach is the best and I’ll explain why.

First we should specify that there are two different categories of unity being proposed. There are activist unities being proposed, which rather than basing themselves on a political idea or platform, are simply united fronts against budget cuts, protest organizations, things like that. These are good and I certainly don’t oppose them, I support them, but I also believe they are insufficient. They fail to address the entire realm of explicit politics (labels, ideologies). They also ignore the issue of elections, which are a critical piece of the Left realistically making inroads into mainstream politics, to the degree required for driving the government into political crisis (electoral or existential), and establishing a different economic system.

So let’s distinguish between a united movement front, such as the activist coalitions described above, and a united political front, which is based on a unity of explicitly-stated ideology or political label. (Note that this is an extreme deviation from the way Trotsky and whoever else used the phrase “united front” but I don’t care.) So what kind of united political front do we need?

Some people think we need a broad “people’s” or “progressive” unity, a phenomenon closely connected to the Greens. This is typically the preference of liberal-progressive types, who to be honest I think are too entrenched in a sort of activist subculture which will never make it big with ordinary Americans. This is a demographic of people who are still nervous about using the word socialism. They are often the group of people who have useless ideas about “going back to small business.” I suppose I, a socialist, could co-exist in a party with such people, but it would be awkward from the start and I suspect there would be constant pressure to silence the socialists in the party when actually our message is what people really want. Progressive-liberals think the basis of unity will be “progressive values,” a phrase which is so abstract and unattractive to most Americans that it makes me throw up in my mouth. Actually it’s not socialism, but this type of moderation and vagueness and activist subculture, which people hate, or which fails to even attract their attention.

The progressive-liberal assertion that “people aren’t ready for the word socialism” is outdated to the point of being a criminal obstacle to our movement. A 2012 Gallup poll stated that 39% of Americans have positive thoughts about the word socialism (that means ~100 million people), and hard-Trotskyist Kshama Sawant just got 35% of the runoff vote in a race for Seattle City Council. She could actually win, which even gives my impatient self a sinking feeling that I am way behind the times and need to play catch-up.

Of course it’s true that CUSP allows for vagueness within the socialist category. What kind of socialists do we welcome? Pretty much all of them except those whose main strategy is working within the Democratic Party. So is this hypocrisy? — narrowing down the range of unity to only socialists, while allowing the full variety of different types of socialists? I don’t think so – I think it’s just a very realistic, hard-nosed course of action based on an honest analysis of where people in the USA are at.

How about a “labor party” or “workers’ party?” Well, those probably won’t get too far either for reasons similar to the “people’s” or “progressive.” A party based on unions would be a great idea, of course, if you could ever get the unions to agree to it. Good luck with that — it would take a veritable army to be able to influence unions to do anything but support the Democrats, because most union locals are basically bureaucracies where the membership follows what the leadership says, and is not even really allowed to question it. So viewing organized labor as the force that will break the two-party system is flawed when labor itself needs to be broken from the two-party system, and to be blunt, this will probably happen from outside influence and not the initiative of unions themselves. Then things like “workers’ parties” run into the same problem as “people’s parties.” As far as many Americans are concerned, the Democrats are a workers’ party. The Republicans too, actually, for people who have a certain narrow view of what a worker is. So unless you are very specific about what workers’ politics specifically are, it’s a dead end that won’t attract anyone because the reason for it is unclear. Might as well just have a socialist party with a working-class orientation.

This of course brings up the issue of an “anti-capitalist” unity. Now we all know that the only reason anyone would want an anti-capitalist unity is to include anarchists. I have nothing against anarchism, I do not crusade against anarchism, and I am even fairly influenced by it. However, the problem is, what we really need is an electoral party (as a revolutionary tactic or as the end goal itself, depending on who you ask). And most anarchists are violently opposed to electoral work. Of course some are not, but they are certainly in the minority, and these anarchists seem to have already found their ways into socialist formations such as SP-USA or Solidarity or whatever, tolerating the awkwardness of that on an individual level. It is really only that type of anarchist which a united socialist party would want, and they’re already covered under the word socialism.

Besides, an anti-capitalist unity would be dysfunctional from the start precisely because of some things wrong with anarchism. First off, “anti-capitalist” is like “progressive values.” Most Americans don’t know what the heck it is or care about it, while socialism gets more and more popular. Anarchism itself, which would obviously play a huge if not central role in an anti-capitalist unity, is at this time just too weird, abstract, and perfectionist for most Americans, unlike socialism which can mean anything from brutal revolution to a welfare state (both of which Americans seem to like the idea of). And then there are just practical-organizational issues. You can hate me for saying it, but consensus-based decision-making is a fatal obstacle for having a group of people larger than even a handful, and it was one of the critical factors in killing Occupy Wall Street.

What’s more important: including anarchists, or attracting tens of millions of ordinary people?

People want the red meat. They won’t get excited about “progressive values” or “fighting austerity” or “anti-capitalism,” whatever the heck those activist buzzwords mean. They want universal healthcare, higher pay, taxes on the rich, better working conditions in those McDonald’s sweatshops, redistribution of wealth, 100% full employment, and better democracy too.

All the other stuff is basically doomed from the start. No one will join, no one will care. A united socialist party which takes elections seriously (among other things) is what will recruit millions of people and turn America upside-down.

Of course, that all being said, we must all work together with any Left forces in a comradely manner (even the ones putting forward a rather different attempt at Left Unity). We must view ourselves as being on the same side, and seek opportunities for collaboration wherever possible. It may ultimately make sense for socialists to act as a faction (well-coordinated, united, not silent about our politics) within whatever unity emerges. For now, though, CUSP definitely has the right idea.