Local Autonomy

Sorry this response is two weeks late.

First, I hope that Raul Cano, who is the co-chair of the Socialist Party, lays out his views more fully in the next H&T (I think the deadline is April 1st).

Second, I'm concerned that Raul's post suggests a kind of "collectivism" more common in Marxist/Leninist groups than in democratic socialist groups, which, historically, the Socialist Party has been. I hope that broader tradition continues - my guess is that most of the SP still supports this tradition, but possibly the next convention may shift our traditions, and affirm the positions held by Raul, the Michigan folks, etc.

I like Raul's use of the word "conscientization", which I heard first perhaps twenty years ago, used in Central and Latin America, linked both to Liberation Theology and the socialist movements there - an effort to get ordinary people, peasants, workers, to understand that they had a right to better lives, that the situation of poverty and oppression were not "ordained and inevitable", and that each person could take part in creating a new society.

It is difficult for me to understand why Raul says that he would counter my view that in some ways "all politics is local" by saying "in this day and age" things are different. Which day and age is he talking about? Socialism has, from the beginning, been an international movement, has taught that all things are linked, and that politics never stops at the national border. This isn't a new idea - it is at the heart of the universal appeal of socialism and democracy. But so is the understanding that socialists will deal with problems in somewhat different ways depending on where they are, what the local situations are, and in realizing that the United States is not merely fifty states, two of which are not directly connected to the other forty eight, but that this nation ranges in climate from tropical to chilly, from rain forests to deserts, from coastal cultures to the endless majesty of the great plains. Each nation is "exceptional" and no socialist movement will succeed in this country which does not realize how very exceptional the United States is, in his origins, its history, its mix of [cultures,] religions, and races.

The notion that our local socialist groups must be the represenative of the national organization is an old Leninist concept and it led, in the case of the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, etc., to a great deal of centralism and very little democracy. Already, as those on SocialistsUnmoderated know, at least three SP members have been "sanctioned" by the National Committee because on their own blogs or web sites they had endorsed Bernie Sanders for Senate. The effort to silence these comrades really smacked of Stalinism - I can't think of a gentler word for it - and ran directly against the concept of spontaneous and open discussion. I say this even though in the case of Bernie (who has been very friendly to the Socialist Party) I had such grave reservations about some of his recent votes - particularly his support of Israel's actions in Lebanon - that I wouldn't have voted for him in the last election, if I had lived in Vermont.

The effort by the majority of the National Committee (and I hope they are writing in their own defense for H&T) that it was OK to sit out the 2004 election campaign, as the Grassroots Tendency did, but not OK for individuals to give support to Bernie Sanders -- that effort is not the result, Raul, of democratic decisions reached at by dialogue, but the efforts of what I think is a minority in the Socialist Party to impose its will. This may work, it may be ratified at the next convention, and then something such as the "purge" of the Wisconsin organization will follow the breaks with the Illinois and North Carolina SP's that have already occured. And at that point, clearly, some of us who have been in the SP for many years may have little choice but to leave.

You've said in the past that I don't understand the current situation in the Socialist Party, that my "base" isn't there, and I've said I never had a base, I wasn't a delegate at the last convention, I doubt I will attend the next one, but I'm concerned about the survival of the concept of socialism - democratic, pluralistic - in this nation. Because without the existence of groups such as the SP, of DSA, of CCDS, the task of "conscientization of the people" cannot occur. We are not a political force - to use the word "Socialist Party" is a kind of farce, though other groups (Revolutionary Communist Party, Workers World Party) also do it. We are not in any position at any time in the near future to win a national election. What we can do is educate, and take part in the daily struggles and help give those struggles a sense of socialist analysis.

Fraternally,
David McReynolds



----- Original Message -----
From: "Raul Cano"
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 3:39 AM

Recently, comrade McReynolds made the comment, quoting Tip O'neill, that all politics are local. he used it to justify the idea that local autonomy was central to the principles of our Party. I would counter that in this day and age, not all politics are local. I would argue that our job as a Party is to abandon this type of provincialism. The reality is that politics are not all local. Today, all politics are inter connected to national and international politics. Our lives are in control of transnational corporation that believe that all politics are international and have international consequences. They extend their international tentacles by realizing that politics have to transcend national self interest. if anything, the transnationals use the concept that all politic are national(list)(the natural extension of all politic are local) to pit nation against nation in a neo liberal battle royale to give in to the transnational's goals. Our goal as a Party both as the national and local level should be to battle against the provincialism that Comrade McReynolds proposes. We should encourage locals to become a network to bring to the table the idea that all politics are not local and that this realization is essential to the conscientization of the people. The local should be the regional representative of the national organization.I propose that there is no compromise between grassroots democracy and a unified message and coordinated action. I propose that there is no compromise between the right of the individual and the type of collectivism needed to create a viable political moment.
Raul Cano
Co Chair
SPUSA