Why Are Progressives Winning ?

 

Sisters and Brothers - 

The media pundits have written article after article desperately trying to understand why progressive candidates, despite being heavily outspent, keep defeating establishment Democrats in primaries around the country. Well, the answer is not complicated. Please read an op-ed I wrote for the Guardian on this subject. - Bernie

---

Why are progressives winning across the United States? It’s not complicated
Poll after poll shows the same thing. The American people know that the current economic system is rigged

Bernie Sanders

The media pundits have written article after article desperately trying to understand why progressive candidates, despite being heavily outspent, keep defeating establishment Democrats in primaries around the country. Well, the answer is not complicated.

Whether it is a corrupt campaign finance system, unprecedented income and wealth inequality, a broken and wildly expensive healthcare system, the enormous threats posed by AI or an immoral and destructive foreign policy, progressives are talking about the real issues facing working families. And they are providing real solutions. Establishment Democrats are not.

Poll after poll shows the same thing. The American people know that the current economic system is rigged. The very rich get richer, while working families struggle. Today, while 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, the billionaire class has never ever had it so good.

We now have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in American history. The top 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 93% and one man, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of US households.

Not surprisingly, working families are tired of status quo politics and the same old, same old establishment policies that have failed them for years. They want change, real change – and are supporting progressive candidates who are fighting for that change.

In the richest country in the history of the world, Americans do not want to have to struggle every single day just to pay the bills. Working-class people do not want to die years younger than they should because of illnesses caused by the never-ending stress they experience just to survive. And, like past generations, they do not want their kids to have a lower standard of living than they do.

Establishment politicians and the establishment media have described the agenda that progressive candidates are winning elections on as “radical”, “far left”, “extremist” or, in the words of Donald Trump, “communist” . All that is nonsense. On major issue after major issue, the progressive agenda is reflecting exactly what a strong majority of the American people need and want.

Let me take this opportunity to share with you some of the major proposals that most progressives support. And you tell me how “extreme” they are.

Campaign finance reform
Progressives believe that our current campaign finance system is corrupt and is undermining democracy. It is absurd that one man, Mr Musk, can spend $290m to help elect Donald Trump as president and that billionaires in both parties can spend unlimited amounts of money in campaigns through their Super Pacs.

We believe that we must end the disastrous US supreme court decision on Citizens United, ban Super Pacs and move to the public funding of elections. We believe that democracy means one person one vote, not billionaires buying elections.

Healthcare
Progressives believe that our current healthcare system is broken, dysfunctional and wildly expensive. We believe that it is immoral and fiscally irresponsible for us to spend roughly twice as much per capita on healthcare as do the people of other major countries, while 85 million Americans remain uninsured or underinsured.

At the same time, we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Progressives believe that healthcare is a human right and that we should do what all other major countries on Earth do, guarantee healthcare to all people. We agree with the 64% of Americans who want a Medicare for all single payer system.

Protecting American workers
Progressives believe that all Americans are entitled to a decent standard of living. We regard it as outrageous that in the year 2026 millions of workers continue to earn starvation wages and that the federal minimum wage remains at a disgraceful $7.25 an hour. We believe that the federal minimum wage should be raised to a living wage of at least $20 per hour.

We also believe that employers should no longer be able to deny workers their constitutional right to join unions through illegal actions. Progressives support the passage of the Pro Act which will make it easier for workers to join unions and negotiate contracts that will provide them with better wages, benefits and working conditions.

Tax the rich
Progressives believe that, at a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, the wealthiest people in this country must start paying their fair share of taxes. At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth and when one-third of our senior citizens are struggling economically, it is absurd that billionaires have an effective tax rate lower than truck drivers or nurses.

The wealthiest people in this country and large profitable corporations must start paying their fair share of taxes so that we can adequately fund the needs of working families, the children and the elderly.

Regulation of AI
Progressives believe that AI and robotics, developed and pushed by the wealthiest people on Earth, are the most transformational technologies in the history of humanity and that they will impact every man, woman and child in our country.

At a time when AI is threatening to displace millions of workers, eviscerate our privacy, harm our environment, undermine our democracy and negatively impact the mental health of our children, we believe that the government must play a decisive role in making sure that these revolutionary technologies are used to benefit all Americans, and not just make the big tech oligarchs even richer.

Climate change
Progressives believe that Trump’s assertion that climate change is a “hoax” is not only extraordinarily ignorant, but is a real danger to the planet. The last 11 years have been the hottest 11 years on record and the last three years have been the hottest three years on record.

This past year the United States and countries throughout the world have seen major heatwaves, flash floods, increased drought and horrific forest fires – and scientists tell us the worst is yet to come.

Progressives believe that we must forcefully take on the greed of the fossil fuel industry. The truth is that we can create millions of good-paying union jobs by transforming our energy systems away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. For the sake of our kids, future generations and the habitability of the planet that is what we must do.

Foreign policy
Progressives believe that we need to fundamentally reform our foreign and military policies. The war in Vietnam was based on a lie. The war in Iraq was based on a lie. The current war in Iran is based on a lie. We do not need to spend $1.5tn a year on the Pentagon fighting endless wars and propping up dictatorships around the world.

We certainly do not have to invest tens of billions supporting the extremist Netanyahu government in Israel, which has killed 73,000 Palestinians and wounded over 173,000 more – the vast majority of them women, children and the elderly.

Despite what the media will have you believe, progressives are winning across this country for a simple reason: the ideas they are running on are extremely popular. It’s time for the political establishment to stop telling the American people what they should believe and start listening to what they actually want.

 

Paid for by Friends of Bernie Sanders

PO BOX 391, Burlington, VT 05402

Submit this form to update your contact information.

How to win elections

 Step by step. 

Sisters and brothers - 

Apologies for not writing more frequently. Pretty crazy and busy times.

Let me begin by thanking you all for making possible the extraordinary successes that we’ve been having over the past year. As a result of your volunteer efforts and financial contributions Progressives have been taking on establishment candidates in Democratic primaries all across the country - and winning. We are changing the face of American politics. You are helping to make it happen.

It began in November with Zohran Mamdani’s incredible campaign to become Mayor of New York City. And then the wins kept on coming. Here are some of our more recent victories:

U.S. Senate Michigan - Abdul El-Sayed
U.S. Senate Minnesota- Peggy Flanagan
U.S. House OH-07 - Brian Poindexter
U.S. House PA -7 - Bob Brooks
U.S. House NJ - 11 - Analilia Mejia 
U.S. House NJ -12 - Adam Hamawy
U.S. House CA - 22 - Randy Villegas
U.S. House - MT - 01 - Sam Forstag
U.S. House - NY 10 - Brad Lander
U.S. House - NY 7 - Claire Valdez
U.S. House - CO -1 - Melat Kiros
U.S. House - AZ - 7 - Adelita Grijalva
U.S. House - MI - 13 - Donavan McKinney
U.S. House - MI - 7 - Will Lawrence
U.S. House - TN - 9 - Justin Pearson
U.S. House - WI - 3 - Rebecca Cooke 
California Insurance Commissioner- Jane Kim

Sisters and brothers. I do not need to tell you that running as a progressive in this country is never easy.

Oftentimes we are taking on the local Democratic Party establishment. We are taking on the national Democratic Party establishment. We are taking on super PACs and big money interests who have unlimited resources to elect their candidates. And if we make it past them, we are then taking on Donald Trump, the Republican Party and more super PACs with unlimited money.

In Michigan last week, we supported two candidates for the House -- Will Lawrence in Lansing and Donavan McKinney in Detroit In the case of Will Lawrence, he was outspent and the national Democratic Party establishment rallied around his opponent. In the case of Donavan McKinney, he was taking on an incumbent Congressman who had the support of the cryptocurrency industry. Both Will and Donavan were victorious.

Statewide, we endorsed Dr. Abdul El-Sayed for United States Senate. We raised more than $500,000 in small-dollar donations for his campaign. We held large rallies for him in Michigan and grassroots meetings for him online. We ran ads in the state and turned out our volunteers for phone banks and door knocks everywhere. 

Abdul was taking on everyone. Including, in a way that I had never heard of before in a Democratic primary -- $60 million in super PAC funding from AIPAC and other organizations. He was outspent by 10-1. Didn't matter. He won.

Peggy Flanagan’s victory in the Minnesota Democratic primary followed a similar course. In her case, she faced a 7 to 1 disparity in outside spending with super PACs spending a record-breaking $20 million against her. Minnesotans saw through the ugly ads. She won by 20 points.

How did Abdul and Peggy do it? How did they manage to win against all that opposition? And what lessons can be learned from their campaigns for other progressives running for office?

First, like Mamdani did in New York City, they both ran extremely aggressive grassroots campaigns. They traveled up and down their states, holding hundreds of town meetings, talking to anyone who would attend. In other words they did effective, old fashioned people-to-people politics. But it was not just the candidates who worked hard. Abdul and Peggy mobilized thousands of volunteers who did the grunt work that every good campaign requires - knocking on doors, distributing literature, making phone calls, doing social media and making sure that voters got to the polls.

Further, Abdul and Peggy did something that too few Democrats running for office do: they gave people something to vote FOR rather than just vote AGAINST. In other words, they treated their constituents as intelligent human beings, honestly described the serious crises facing our country and outlined an agenda that addresses the pain that millions of working class families are experiencing. In their campaigns they made clear that it’s too late for tinkering around the edges. We need real change NOW.

Both of them had the courage to take on the Oligarchs who wield such enormous power over our economy and political life, and the greed of corporate America. They campaigned on raising the minimum wage to a living wage and their support for the trade union movement. They demanded an end to poverty for seniors, children and the disabled, making housing affordable and creating millions of good paying jobs by combatting the existential threat of climate change. They made clear that the time is long overdue for the billionaire class to start paying its fair share of taxes. 

Over and over again, they described our current healthcare system as broken and dysfunctional, that healthcare is a human right and that we must move to a Medicare for All single payer program which guarantees health care to every man, woman, and child in this country. 

They also spoke out forcefully against our disastrous foreign policy, the need to end “endless wars” and the cessation of all military aid to the extremist Netanyahu government in Israel.

Sisters and brothers - I look across this country at the rallies we've held and the elections we won and I believe we may very well be on the brink of the political revolution we have been fighting for over the last decade.

If I had told you eleven years ago when we launched our first campaign for president that we'd have socialist mayors in New York City, Seattle and Washington, DC; that the people of California would put a billionaire tax on the ballot this November, that progressives and democratic socialists would be defeating establishment candidates in House and Senate races everywhere... I am not sure many of you would have believed me.

But that is what is happening right now in America.

And it's not because of me...

It's because of US.

What all of us - together - have done over the years is to fight for government that works for all, and not just the few - a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

Needless to say our work is not finished. Far from it. We’re just beginning. Winning a primary is one thing. Winning a general election is something else.

During the next two and a half months I intend to do everything I can to see that progressive candidates win their elections and that Democrats gain control over the House and the Senate.

We’re in this together. Let's get it done.

In solidarity,

Bernie 

The American Left's Problem With Antisemitism

 https://newrepublic.com/article/184236/american-left-problem-antisemitism

The American Left’s Problem With Antisemitism

 

Anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim hate are just as pernicious, of course. But there is no segment of the left that denies the existence of those. Why do some ignore antisemitism?

 

Venezuela Election Report

 Marc Cooper , from his substack. 

I HAVE to say something about Venezuela. Too much of the American Left along with a few groupuscles in Latin America are the only people in the world still believing that the Maduro Dictatorship in Venezuela is actually an anti-imperialist beacon of socialist solidarity and prosperity.

In fact, it is a hell hole from which a full quarter of the population — some 8 million— have fled. And having run into some of the 700,000 who are now in Chile, these are poor people who were plain hungry and tired of the Chavista-Maduro bullshit.

Maduro has created a new class of wealthy government lackeys, parasites, and favored loyalists who are swimming in money — and not exactly short on cocaine (google Maduro’s wife and family for that one). As Chavez dubbed his regime Bolivarian, the new rich are called the Boliburgueses.

Since the election a week ago Sunday, hundreds of thousands of protesters have come into the streets denouncing the obvious fraud perpetrated. Around 20 have been shot dead. Among the various election observers, many from progressive Latin American organizations, the Carter center, the international press, and the opposition itself, it appears that Maduro actually lost by a margin as big as 2 to 1 but simply declared victory.  The AP has concluded he really lost. Duh. So has everybody else. Well, almost everybody. There are still American progressives like acrobats in pain, contorting themselves to justify one of the most fixed elections in recent history.

Much of the American Left cannot articulate a strong critique of regimes like Venezuela or Cuba for that matter, and currently not even Russia, because there is a large percentage of American lefties who are wittingly or otherwise, are what we Old Leftists call “campists.”

They believe in their hearts that only the US has imperialist or military agency and that any country in the world, regardless of its regime, is to be supported if it is “anti-imperialist” which in the end translates as anti-American. So… for these campists, yeah, Iran and China and even Russia and certainly Venezuela, are seen ONLY as victims of US imperialism with absolutely NO regard for the living conditions of the respective populations. Nor is any independent agency ever assigned to these “anti-imperialist” states because whatever they do, whatever evil they perpetrate on their own people or others, is rotuinely justified by these campists as legitimate resistance to.. multiple choice: a)the cia b) the state department c) NATO, D) and generally, US Imperialism. 

And while leftists are properly quick to point out all the anti-democratic aspects of American elections they are usually dead silent on these sort of chronic human rights violations imposed by various dictatorships — so long as they call themselves socialist (they are not) or, simply engage in phony anti-Imperialist rhetoric. The case study for the latter is Nicaragua where the dictatorial Ortega family has buried both the Sandinista Revolution and basic democracy and in the name of Sandino has imposed a ruthless pro-capitalist dictatorship with socialist rhetoric. I guess that is the China model. Savage capitalist dictatorship with enormous inequality all in the name of Chinese socialism. I mean, how do these reptiles get through a party convention without cracking up in laughter (but dont ask Code Pink about Chinese democracy because China is a victim of US Imperialism — and also a pretty direct funder of Code Pink!

This chronic inability to liberate themselves from these Stalinist impulses, their ability to apologize for brutally anti-democratic dictatorships so long as they are a thorn in the American side. render this sort of American leftist politically inert at best — radioactive at worst.

---------         ----------------            -----------------

 

Many of us will remember Marc Cooper from his informed writings on Chile at the time of the coup, and during the dictatorship.

(https://thecoopscoop.substack.com/p/coop-scoop-do-progressives-really(https://thecoopscoop.substack.com/p/coop-scoop-do-progressives-really))

 

The AP Results.

https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-maduro-machado-biden-gonzalez-a625eb01979bc9cf5570d03242f198b1

 

 

 

Whose Side Are We On? The War in Ukraine and the Crisis of the Left

 

By Van Gosse and Bill Fletcher, Jr.

Portside

 

April 19, 2022 - Whose side are we on? That is the question that anyone professing a commitment to anti-imperialism should be asking, when a sovereign nation is invaded by a Great Power.

 

Blinded by American Exceptionalism, however, many of the U.S. Left are not able to answer the question, and their silence speaks.

 

We must always oppose empire, under any heading. No nation has the right to dominate another, let alone invade and occupy it. That was the principle we as leftists affirmed in 2003, when George W. Bush led the United States into a war of aggression against Iraq.

 

We should state it plainly, in terms of international law. Aggressive war is the first crime of war, from which all the others flow. As the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg stated, “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” 

 

Vladimir Putin has now committed this crime of war, and that is the premise from which we should analyze the crisis in Ukraine: Whose side are we on? That of the war criminals who started the war, or those who are defending their sovereignty? 

 

For ourselves, we are on the side of the Ukrainian people against an unprovoked war of aggression by an imperialist Great Power demonstrating in unmistakable terms what V.I. Lenin denounced as “Great Russian chauvinism.”

 

Here are some questions to consider.

 

Does Russia have “legitimate security interests” in Ukraine and other nations bordering it?

That premise has been affirmed repeatedly by various antiwar organizations, so we need to underline: states large and small have one legitimate security interest, which is to have their sovereignty respected—not to be invaded, bombed, blockaded, or subverted.

 

That is the limit of Russia’s security interest regarding Ukraine. It has no “legitimate interest” in dominating, controlling, or dictating policy to the states bordering it, any more than the U.S. does. Many of us have spent decades denouncing the politics of the Monroe Doctrine, what Theodore Roosevelt defined in 1904 as the U.S.’s right to “the exercise of an international police power” in the Americas, which led to military occupations all over the Caribbean and Central America between 1898 and 1934, the CIA-organized coup in Guatemala in 1954, and the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989. That is what it looks like when a Great Power claims “a sphere of influence.” No one claiming to be anti-imperialist should concede any legitimacy to a Russian “sphere of influence.”

 

But hasn’t NATO expansion threatened Russia?

 

As anti-imperialists we oppose militarism in any form, including permanent military pacts, and the aggressive militarism promoted by the U.S.-led NATO alliance. The best way to protect the rights of small nations is to seek demilitarization in Europe and everywhere else. But it is utterly wrong for us to dictate to nations in Eastern Europe whether or not they join an alliance because of the concrete threat that Russia poses to their sovereignty. This is the message the Left in those countries has sent us, and we must respect it as a basic principle of internationalist solidarity. We have no more right to tell them what to do than the U.S. does to pressure or subvert the government of Canada if it chose to leave NATO and conclude a treaty of friendship with China.

 

Doesn’t the United States share responsibility for this war?

 

Like all major historical events, the war in Ukraine has many causes, and many actors were involved. Focusing on what the U.S. did or didn’t do takes the focus off who started it, and absolves Russia from its sole responsibility for initiating a war of aggression. Beyond that, it betrays an Americo-centric view of the world that is at odds with reality. The United States is no longer a world hegemon, it does not determine the course of history, and presuming its centrality makes the U.S. into an exception, standing outside and above the normal relations between states.

 

Shouldn’t we focus on peacekeeping by opposing all weapons transfers to Ukraine?

The Ukrainians have a right to defend their country, and that includes the right to seek aid from anywhere they see fit. It is everyone’s interest to keep this war from spreading, so we should oppose any measures, such as a no-fly zone, that would widen the zone of war across international borders and draw in more nations.

 

We are not pacifists. The Left should avoid confusing pacifism, as in opposition to war in any form, with anti-imperialism. We cannot stand aside and simply condemn the violence. It is in Putin’s hands to stop the war now; until then, we take the side of the Ukrainians.

 

[Van Gosse is a Professor of History at Franklin & Marshall College, and Co-Chair of Historians for Peace and Democracy.

 

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a past president of TransAfrica Forum and a longtime trade unionist and writer.] .

 

As Romney Says Covid Relief Bill 'Not Well-Timed,' Progressives Urge Biden to Abandon GOP Outreach, Move Swiftly on Bold Package

As Romney Says Covid Relief Bill 'Not Well-Timed,' Progressives Urge Biden to Abandon GOP Outreach, Move Swiftly on Bold Package

AOC Interview On Divisions Within the Democratic Party

A Global Left

Progressive International from MEANS OF PRODUCTION on Vimeo.

The Left Needs Strategy for 2020 and Beyond

WEB ONLY / FEATURES » SEPTEMBER 19, 2018

Progressives Need a Clear Strategy for 2020 and Beyond—Here Are 5 Guidelines

We have significant numbers. But we need to continue to build our ranks, and mobilize behind a winning political strategy.

BY MAX ELBAUM AND CALVIN CHEUNG-MIAW

http://inthesetimes.com/article/21451/progressives-left-election-donald-trump-strategy-organizing-analysis

Democrats Move Left

Democrats Move Left 

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/great-moving-left-show-democratic-party?

Max Elbaum, 

What we can learn from the Sixties. He is the author of Revolution in the Air.

Max spoke in Sacramento last month cosponsored by DSA.  This essay focuses on what the Left of today ( DSA) can learn from the turmoil of the Left in the 60’s and 70’s.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/21387/new-communist-movement-democratic-socialists-activism-left

Reading Politics in a Time of Crisis: A book review

Reading Politics in a Time of Crisis – A view from the Left.

By Duane Campbell

As we know, the economic crisis of 2008-2012 disrupted the U.S. economy.  The crisis was much worse in some of the peripheral countries of Europe (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy among others), and even more destructive in under-developed regions of African and Asia.

Spanish political leader Pablo Iglesias Turrión has written Politics in a Time of Crisis: Podemos and the Future of European Democracy, published in an English translation by Verso Books. Iglesias provides a critical summary of the crisis that began in the U.S., and spread to much of the world causing political upheavals and leaving misery, starvation, and massive migration in its wake.

We can learn much from reading Iglesias about this crisis in Spain and  other countries and economies, including how the crisis led  several social democratic political parties in Spain, Greece, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe to collaborate with right-wing movements to impose austerity on the people.  This collaboration led to the collapse of  many social democratic political parties, the rise of  authoritarian right-wing parties,  and now the rise of a new left.  A similar process led to the collapse of social democratic parties in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico.  Currently in Mexico the formerly left-wing Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD) is working with the right-wing National Action (PAN) party while a new left –the National Regeneration Movement (“MORENA”) may well win this summer’s presidential elections.

Pablo Iglesias, a political science professor, is one of several leaders of Podemos (Spanish for “We Can”), a party of democratic socialism and populism that was born in 2014 and currently commands almost 21 % of the vote in Spain.  In just 4 short years, it became the second largest party in Spain while the traditionally left Socialist Workers party (PSOE) collaborated with a conservative government to impose austerity and lost much of its membership.

Iglesias’ and Podemos’ analysis of the economic crisis beginning in 2008 is that New York and London became the financial capitals of the world.  In the U.S. , the financial sector itself became the most powerful political force- a group he calls the Party of Wall Street:

“The Party of Wall Street is a Leninist party in its way: it is a class party with an international vocation. This party represents those who inhabit the penthouses of the economic system. It is the party that encouraged the selling of subprime mortgages that left millions of Americans homeless.  Under the Secretary of the Treasury and former CEO of Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson, it is the party  that brought off a ‘soft’ coup d’etat  in Washington and forced the American government to inject billions of dollars into the banking system. It is the party that Angela Merkel belongs to; the party that controls the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund; the party that imposes structural adjustment programs on developing countries and swingering cuts on the countries of southern Europe[...]The party has been flourishing well before the 2008 crisis, always keeping to a very precise political line: to consolidate the power of finance” (Chapter 3)

According to Iglesias, the Party of Wall Street brought neoliberalism to the U.S. and Europe and  used its power to promote an unstable expansion of credit, while combating wage increases, trade unions and the existing welfare programs. The Party of Wall Street used the rhetoric of promoting free trade and privatization, and its political program was above all else a class project designed to establish and extend the power of financial elites.  The neoliberal projects are directly and closely connected to globalization of finance and the control of the economies of core nations.

I myself have been teaching a course here in California on our economic crisis since 2011, and  Iglesias’  descriptions of the processes that the rich used to loot the U.S. and eventually the world economy  are well-developed and supported by substantial research in the U.S.  His arguments about the Party of Wall Street moves those of us on the left beyond the endless debate about what stance left parties should take toward the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. 

This debate continues while we need to move on to organizing for power.   Meanwhile, a proto-fascist Donald Trump and his retinue have been elected, and have unleashed a reign of terror on the undocumented. They have proposed austerity and budget cuts in child care and health care that will lead to the deaths of many.  Their assault on organized labor is in the offing.

The issue is not good Democrats vs. bad Democrats and fascist Republicans.  As  Iglesias writes, the problem is the Party of Wall Street and how it must be defeated.  The party of Wall Street carried out a financial coup In the U.S. in 2008-2010.  The financial disease then spread to Europe.  U.S. and European banks and financial houses converted their financial losses to “citizen debt” to be paid by government austerity programs:

“ American taxpayers were forced to hand over their money to Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and other fraudsters of the same ilk. … the disease spread, and  outlying European countries soon found themselves in similar predicaments. Countries like Greece, Ireland and Spain, have de-industrialized their economies in favor of tourism, services and construction and allowed financial institutions to pump up property bubbles, now bailed out their own banks… Just as in the U.S., bank debt was converted to citizen debt, which ordinary people would have to pay off in the forms of cuts to public services and ferocious austerity measures. (Chapter 3)

The party of Wall Street convinced European banks that the existing welfare systems and union policies were too expensive, initially in Greece, Spain and Italy.  The effects of government imposed austerity have been horrifying: pension cuts, high unemployment, cuts to health and education systems.  “In Spain by the end of 2013, there were more than six million unemployed, a third of whom received no state assistance, and youth unemployment reached 60 per cent.” (Chapter 3) Austerity policies not only failed to produce growth, they have plundered the economies and created desperate situations for the young and the unemployed.

Perhaps more important than Iglesias’  view of the economic crisis from Spain is the way he and a new left responded- a left that became Podemos.

Spain, of course, is different than the U.S.  It has a fascist past and it is an economically dominated member of the European Union.   It is often called by the media a member of the European “periphery” or “south” as if it should not be considered a member of the Global North any longer.  Spain historically had a socialist government of PSOE, which participated in the government responding to the crisis of imposed European austerity.

Podemos was formed in 2014 based in significant part on the prior protests of 15-M (the “May 15” movement based around protests in May of 2011) against inequality, corruption, and massive unemployment.   In the elections on May 25, 2014, Podemos received some 7.9 % of the national vote and elected 5 members of the European Parliament.  In elections in December of 2015, Podemos received 21 % of the vote and gained 69 out of 350 seats in the Spanish parliament.  Since 2015 the formerly leftist PSOE party has been substantially repudiated for participating in the imposition of neoliberal capitalist policies of bailouts and tax cuts for the rich, and austerity for the great majority.  Social-democratic parties across Europe are facing similar defeats, including most recently the Socialist Party of France.

Led by Iglesias and others, Podemos has created a new form of struggle based in large part on the ideas of people working in the tradition of Gramsci. In Politics in a Time of Crisis, Iglesias reviews the histories of Marxism, and of Leninist parties and social democratic parties in Europe- and where they failed.  He  asserts that a first problem was that the conservatives were winning elections in part because the majority did not participate.

Iglesias argued that since the broad mass of people were not engaging in politics through the existing parties, the left had to go where the people were.  This was a war of ideology and of position.  In addition to local movement organizing, Podemos established a nationwide, web-based television program, “Tuerka,” to advance a left analysis of the crisis. 

With over 25 % unemployment, and over 50% among the young, the people knew there was serious problem.  The critical issue was to explain the crisis in common language so that potential voters could understand the role of the existing parties- the Party of Wall Street, in looting the economy, and the alternatives to this party.

Podemos created a new kind of open, participatory party not weighted down by the corruptions of the past, including corruptions of the established parties and labor union officialdom .

As in the U.S., the banks and the rich recovered, the poor and the working class did not.  And, in Spain as a de-industrialized country as a consequence of EU policy, the impacts on the lives of the working class were more severe, including a rise in hunger nationwide.

The banks were robbing the people. The debt in Spain was private bank debt that the government accepted to placate the Eurozone under threat similar to that of economic war imposed upon Greece..  Conservative governments and social democratic parties collaborated to destroy the Spanish and European social welfare state—including its labor rights—as they did in Greece:

“The central strategy of Podemos was to occupy the centrality of political discussion:  “in Gramscian terms in this war of position was to create a new common sense that would allow us to occupy a transversal position at the heart of a newly reformulated political spectrum.” (Appendix II) 

Podemos offered the population a left perspective in terms all could understand, and, they became the left.  It was not that Podemos organized a new left.  The conditions and events created space for a resistance, and Podemos created the formulation.  They did not create a left- the left existed. It previously lacked some explanatory power because economists, news media, and politicians were  funded by capitalists  and locked in old categories, not addressing the clear and immediate dangers of the economic crisis.  The old left lacked credibility, since it was often collaborating with conservatism to impose austerity.

Podemos recognized that the economic crisis was a political crisis.  It was created by the Party of Wall Street, and it could best be resolved by gaining control of the government through the expansion of democracy not by endless debates about Keynesian or post Keynesian economics.

The economic crisis, of course, is not limited to Spain, nor is the engagement of formerly social democratic parties into the Party of Wall Street.  Iglesias offers many useful insights including comments of the problems of the “infantile” left, and problems of institutionalizing a movement.  But, first, we have to recognize that the issue is about power and that the broad working class can seize power.

The chapter History: the Future Has an Ancient Heart, provides a detailed recounting of recent Spanish political history and the struggle for democracy since the Monarchy of the 1900’s.  The history is important since it was often determinant in shaping the PSOE and the competing labor union federations.  I am confident Spanish readers found many insights there.

Political conditions differ in the U.S., in Mexico and other places.  Bernie Sanders faced a dominant 2 party system and a presidential government.  Spain faces a multiparty system and a parliamentary government.  Mexico is currently in facing the collapse of the prior social democratic opposition – the PRD- and the rise of a citizen’s movement somewhat similar to Podemos in Morena.   The critical election will be in July of 2017.

Despite the differences in how our political systems structurally operate, perhaps we can learn from Iglesias on how a broad-based popular movement was created by movement leaders and activists, rather than an electoral party centered around individual candidates.

 I heartily recommend reading  Politics in a Time of Crisis. There is much we can learn by reading Iglesias’ insights about Spain, Europe, and political organizing.   The author offers valuable insights and examples for those of us seeking to create a left in the U.S. that can achieve power – as opposed to a left that talks primarily to itself.

 And then, we will have to write our own story.

Duane Campbell is a professor emeritus of bilingual multicultural education at California State University Sacramento, a union activist, and past chair of Sacramento DSA. He serves on the Immigrant Rights Committee of DSA’s Anti Racism Working Group and as an editor of the Democratic Left blog.  

The False Dichotomy Between Movement Building and Electoral Politics

By Tom Gallagher

Most people we might think of as being on the American left don’t generally embrace the idea of “American exceptionalism.” There is one apparent exception to this unexceptional point of view, however, at least in some corners of the American left. That is the notion that in the U.S. – unlike any other country with a reasonably democratic system – electoral politics are somehow only an optional part of a serious political movement. The latest expression of this “only in America” point of view comes in response to Senator Bernie Sanders’s declaration of his intention to run in next year’s Democratic Party presidential primaries.

The objections to his candidacy come in at least two variants – “not now” and “never.” The “never” perspective is articulated by David Swanson in hisCounterPunch article, “Invest in Activism, Not Bernie Sanders.” It’s not that Swanson doesn’t like Sanders. On the contrary, although he allows that he has some disagreements with him – which he characterizes as “imperfections” on Sanders’s part – Swanson considers “the contrast with Clinton ... like day to night.” Nevertheless, he pleads, “please do not give him or Hillary or the wonderful Jill Stein or any other candidate a dime or a moment of your life. Instead, join the movement,” referring to people seeking justice on the streets of Baltimore, trying to abolish nuclear weapons in the halls of the United Nations, and doing any number of other valuable things.

This movement, he reminds us, “has always been the driving force for change.” For instance it “gave women the right to vote” and we should support the efforts of those now “struggling to create fair elections through steps like automatic registration in Oregon, and pushing legislation to provide free media, match small donors, give each voter a tax credit to contribute.”

Building the Next Left

A strategy for change: Bill Fletcher

 By Bill Fletcher, Jr. , Carl Davidson 

The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record … Which Is Why We Are Voting For Him    August 9, 2012  | 

Let’s cut to the chase. The November 2012 elections will be unlike anything that any of us can remember.  It is not just that this will be a close election.  It is also not just that the direction of Congress hangs in the balance.   Rather, this will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.  

Unfortunately what too few leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white supremacy; on race and the racial implications of the moves to the right in the US political system. It is also focused on a re-subjugation of women, harsh burdens on youth and the elderly, increased war dangers, and reaction all along the line for labor and the working class. No one on the left with any good sense should remain indifferent or stand idly by in the critical need to defeat Republicans this year.

U.S. Presidential elections are not what progressives want them to be

A large segment  of what we will call the ‘progressive forces’ in US politics approach US elections generally, and Presidential elections in particular, as if: (1) we have more power on the ground than we actually possess, and (2) the elections are about expressing our political outrage at the system. Both get us off on the wrong foot.

The US electoral system is among the most undemocratic on the planet.