This was sent to the left-wing magazine The Baffler around Memorial Day 2024, but not published. But it's too good not to share--GF
I’ve been subscribing to the Baffler
for the past three years, ever since the May/June 2021 issue, and just
renewed my subscription. I confess to not
reading a lot of the Baffler’s articles that have appeared, but then, I
subscribe to a number of small magazines of the left and center-left, and don’t
always read a lot of what’s in them, either.
But when I do read something that especially strikes my mind, sometimes
it moves me, as a published writer and poet, to comment publicly. And so I do so here, hopefully in the
irreverent, snarky style the Baffler is noted for—although, I must admit,
my arguments may be too earnest to entirely lend themselves to that approach!
Specifically, as an
anti-authoritarian democratic socialist very much disenchanted with the results
of the Bolshevik-legacy experiments in what Jacobin and others have
called “state socialism,” from the
supposedly halcyon days of Lenin and Trotsky in power through the dark nights
of rule by Stalin and later, Brezhnev, to foreign acolytes such as Mao, Pol
Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Cubans indigenous and transplanted such as Fidel, Raúl and
Che right up to present-day Cuban “maximum leader,” Díaz-Canel, the more I’m struck
by how they all failed to create a “workers’ paradise.” Worse.
What they actually created was a world of Gulags and 3 AM knocks on the
door by the political police, a world where even a supposedly innocuous
critical comment could get one in deep trouble with the authorities, and where
reformers ranging from 1956 Hungary’s Imre Nagy to 1968 Czechoslovakia’s Alexander
Dubček to 1950s Yugoslav dissident Milovan Djilas right down to “official”
reformers such as Khrushchev and Gorbachev all ended up banging their heads
futilely at firmly-embedded brick walls; that is, when they weren’t killed,
unceremoniously sacked, or jailed. And
that’s just to name a prominent few.
Many others not as well-known simply disappeared into the labyrinths of
the various Gulags. As, Bertrand
Russell, someone with impeccable left-wing bona fides. noted in his 1920 study
of Revolutionary Russia, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, written
after visiting there in 1919 with the delegation of the British Independent
Labour Party: “…while some forms
of socialism are immeasurably better than capitalism, others are even
worse. Among those that are worse I
reckon the form which is being achieved in Russia, not only in itself, but as
more insuperable barrier to further progress.” This is the same Bertrand Russell who writes
two pages earlier, “The existing capitalist system is doomed. Its injustice is so glaring that only
ignorance and tradition could lead wage earners to tolerate it.” Other valuable eyewitness accounts of
disillusionment with revolutionary Russia by eyewitnesses with impeccable
left-wing bona fides include Emma Goldman’s My Disillusionment in Russia
and Left Menshevik leader Iulii (Julius) Martov’s World Bolshevism.
There’s much other relevant
literature available, needless to say, on other Bolshevik-legacy regimes, from
post-World War II Eastern Europe to China, Vietnam, and Cuba from other critics
with left-wing bona fides.
All of which brings me back to the Baffler
and my democratic socialism, or as others would put it, my “mere social
democracy” and appreciation for DSA founder Michael Harrington’s “left wing of
the feasible.” I like a socialism that
works and works well, and to date such has not come from the influence of
Bolshevism, but from the European social democracy, and in the US, the legacy
of the New Deal and yes, even the better aspects of the Great Society of LBJ. This is not a political tradition, from what
I’ve read in it, that the Baffler is particularly enamored with, but it
has proved itself in actual practice to be a more workable one than that which
has been handed down now for over a hundred years by the adherents of
Bolshevism. It has also materially and psychologically benefitted millions
across Western Europe, Scandinavia, and the US; has made for workers’ entry
into the “middle class” and built trade unions; and, especially in the US, has
created institutions such as Social Security, minimum wage guarantees, unemployment
and workers’ compensation, Medicare and Medicaid which are not only taken for
granted, but which have benefitted millions now for more than a few generations;
as well as being programs that reactionaries love to hate and accuse of being
fiscally irresponsible! Yes, compared to
the promises of “pie in the sky” in the world “after the Revolution” they are
but “half a loaf.” But truly, “half a
loaf” is preferable to no loaf at all, especially one that is nowhere on the actual
political horizon of 2024. When one will
settle only for “all or nothing,” one shouldn’t be at all surprised when one
gets—absolutely nothing! (For a good
overview of what social democracy accomplished in Western Europe and
Scandinavia, see Donald Sassoon’s 1996 One Hundred Years of Socialism
[New York: The New Press].)
But the Baffler didn’t see
this at all, particularly in its Sept. Oct. 2021 issue (#59), thematically
titled “Ill Liberalism,” and which thinking in that issue still permeates the Baffler’s
political approach. It took liberalism
to task in several leading articles, all designed to expose the inherent
weaknesses of “mere liberalism” and demolish its pretentions, It especially took to task one of the smallest of small
magazines, Liberties, a journal so small it’s truly obscure, though
still publishing. Further, the Baffler
conflated liberalism as a political philosophy with “corporate liberalism” and
“woke” corporations, neither of which is, or ever has been, as liberal or as
awake as its PR portends (or is that, more properly, “pretends”?!) But changing demographics do make for newly
emerging markets, and today’s youth, the coming-of-age denizens of that prime
buying group (those aged 25-55) do tend much more to the left, and far more
conscious and supportive of social movements for racial and gender equality
domestically than do past generations, as well as being more critical of US
foreign policy. Meanwhile, many of those
in the ”Revolutionary Youth Movement” of the 1960s and 1970s have conservatized
and drastically aged (and also, were vastly inflated in numbers in the
first place), and are now those forlorn Baby Boomers who are on the way
out. “‘Woke’ corporations,” contrary to
what people such as Ron DeSantis would have one believe, are not revolutionary
firebrands whose “pernicious” influence is omnipresent, and is undermining
capitalism and “traditional values”:
rather, they are savvy marketeers adopting to new market trends as they
manifest themselves among those of prime buying age! Rather than Revolution 101, “corporate
‘wokeness’” is far more an application of Marketing 101, taught in all the
business schools worth their “genuinely organic” salt across this “land of the
free, and home of the brave.” It’s also
a certain twinge of conscience (let’s be fair) among corporate elites, who feel
one does not have to be an absolutely ruthless, heartless, dictatorial Robber
Baron to make a decent profit. Indeed,
I, along with many on the left, might even feel more comfortable with sharing a
beer and polite conversation with them than I ever would with someone such as
Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, or J.D.
Vance! “So what?” goes the appropriate question.
So, to put it in more directly left
political terms (pace, Baffler!), the problem with liberalism is not so
much that it is evil as it is seemingly inadequate. It is applying a bandage when a torniquet is
needed, according to those more attuned to the “far left.” But this particular leftist, me, myself, and
I, regard liberals of the ordinary grassroots stripe as the—Near Left! Yes, they are “incrementalist;” yes, they are
closer to the center than to the left, particularly the “far left;” yes, they
are more comfortable with “piecemeal” solutions, and want to make sure
something is tested and true before being implemented. So what?
That makes liberalism cautious, that’s all. The same charge was leveled against the
European social democrats who put into place social democracy and the welfare
state (more successfully than was done in the US). “Why settle for mere national healthcare when
you can have a thoroughgoing Revolution?” the critics’ refrain went. Why?
Because the thoroughgoing Revolution is a pipe dream, that’s why! We can look to Bolshevik-legacy “state
socialism” and see that, and more—not just Gulags, but vital material goods
shortages! Not just censorship, but interminable
queues! As a democratic socialist quite
“satisfied” to “settle for” a greater social democracy in this country, and
hope to hell my hopes aren’t dashed by the triumph of a fascistic Christian
Nationalism and recrimination such as that associated with today’s Donald Trump
and the Republican Party, that is why I’m going to reach out to the Near Left
of grassroots liberalism, and try to win them over as coalition allies!
Because that’s what real-world
politics is all about: building coalitions to achieve positive results in the
here-and-now. Period. Not demanding agreement on all points, only ones
that mutually concern us at the present, to achieve realistic goals now and in
the foreseeable future. Not, decidedly
not, for the Final Result in the
chiliastic Millennium where everything, yes, everything, is “perfect
forever”! In doing this, I don’t reach
out to potential coalition partners the way I would to potential members of an
affinity group, or those whom I want to put on the guest list for my trendy
party. No, I just want coalition
partners who are dependable enough to work constructively with me to achieve
concrete goals that are “the left wing of the feasible.” So, let that be “incremental.” I can also fight for more on the day or days
after the initial victory, and victories, even if small, are always better at
morale-building than defeats, no matter how glorious the defeated cause. That, my Baffler friends, is how
Politics 101 is actually done in the real world. That is what Bernie Sanders did in 2016 and
2020 with such great success. The “far
leftists” accused Sanders of mere “sheepdogging” for the Democratic Party, but
truth is, Bernie Sanders did more to build what today we can call a reasonably
vibrant left than did all the “communists,” “Marxist-Leninists,” “pure
Marxists” and “anarchists” who preceded him.
Thanks to Bernie, we have more vibrancy on the left, and more left
politicians in office, than we had before his two “sheepdogging” campaigns—and
I say, let us never forget that!
As for issues to emphasize, I would
recommend domestic issues that attract the interest of millions, and stay clear
as much as possible from emphasizing foreign policy issues on which only a
handful are really expert (despite all sorts of pretensions otherwise), and
which easily degenerate into “left” sectarian dogfights, as we are currently
seeing, e.g., on Gaza, the Ukraine, and China.
Keep demands simple and direct, and don’t worry overmuch about whether
they are “merely incremental” or not. On
the immediate issue of Gaza, which is certainly not going to go away anytime
soon, a simple demand for a “ceasefire” enforceable on both parties,
Israel and Hamas, is all the realistic left can ask for, and still get widespread
public support. Without widespread
public support nothing gets done effectively, and certainly not in a society
with democratic norms and practices. If
the reluctant masses do acquiesce in being forced to follow a particular course,
they do so sullenly and passive-aggressively, as the whole sorry history of
Bolshevik-legacy “already existing socialism” (to use Brezhnev’s euphemistic
phrase) so amply shows. That, my Baffler
friends, is what I recommend on politics and dealing with liberals as a
democratic socialist in the tradition of Michael Harrington’s “left wing of the feasible."
