Building a Socialist Movement in the Bernie Moment

Ashton Rome

01 Jun 2016

by Ashton Rome

Some leftist organizations are betting that lots of Bernie Sanders supporters “will feel betrayed watching Sanders endorse a corporate Democrat,” Hillary Clinton, in Philadelphia this summer. Socialist Alternative, the party to which the author belongs, believes this election season provides an historic chance to build an independent political party to the left of the Democrats.“

Building a Socialist Movement in the Bernie Moment

by Ashton Rome

“The Democratic Party delivers only to the degree that capitalism will allow.”

The 2016 Presidential election has represented the biggest break in the two party system this century and a huge opportunity for the US Left to build the framework for an independent working class party. To date, over 100,000 people have signed on to the “Bernie or Bust” petition and over 30,000 have signed the “Bernie: Run Through November as an Independent” petition launched by Seattle councilwoman Kshama Sawant. This moment is not defined by the “establishment” vs “democratic socialist” nature of the Democratic primary contest but ultimately by the powerful movements, like the ‘Battle in Wisconsin’, Occupy, and the Black Freedom Movement that have emerged since the start of the Global Recession (2007-8). The emergence of a political figure like Senator Bernard Sanders, with a platform that includes Medicare for all, $15 federal minimum wage, and free public education, is in many ways reflects the global antiestablishment mood that has resulted in the creation and popularity of new reformist political parties and politicians such as Jeremy Corbyn, Syriza and Podemos.

The popularity around Sanders has proved that a bold working class platform will resonate with millions, even to the white working class. It has also proven that the Left can run viable campaigns funded by working people themselves. The creation of (revolutionary) mass workers’ parties rarely takes place in a pure form—in many cases they began as splits from reformist parties and organizations, and especially in this period, as third parties with memberships divided over the question of “capitalism” despite occasional anti-capitalist rhetoric. A socialist strategy to win Sanders supporters to independent politics needs to take into the account the size, strength, and militancy of Left forces, their social and the political divisions, and new organizations that have formed due to the campaign.

“Hillary Clinton’s now famous interview where she used the term ‘super predator’ revels how instrumental she was in the marketing and implementation of her husband’s polices.”

Even though Sanders likely did not plan to expose the undemocratic and racist nature of the Democratic Party, his choice to run as a Democrat despite being a life-long independent has exposed many of the contradictions in the Democratic party that make it an impossible vehicle for social change. For example, even before the start of the primary season, Hillary Clinton was able to court and secure hundreds of super-delegates, even from states that Sanders won. The use of super-delegates as a countercheck against grassroots movements is only one sign of the Democratic Party’s adherence to the neoliberal agenda that Hillary represents. Only one Democratic U.S. Senator has endorsed Bernie, Jeff Merkley, of Oregon, while 40 have endorsed Hillary. Even in the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), which has 71 House members, only four members have endorsed Sanders. These numbers certainly do not reflect the proportion of voters supporting Hillary versus Bernie. Outside the Senate, “Left democrats” like Students for a Democratic Society founder, Tom Hayden, have endorsed Clinton, likely as a favor for his DNC race. The lauded “progressive” New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio endorsed Hillary, calling her “the candidate who I believe can fundamentally address income inequality effectively, the candidate who has the right vision.”

Because Sanders was forced to respond and take on the demands of the Black Freedom Movement, particularly due to the interventions at NetRoots and a campaign event in Seattle in 2015, he has been given political space to expose the disastrous effects of the history the modern Democratic Party’s economic and social policies on Black America. An open conversation has been happening on the streets and social media around Bill Clinton’s commitment and implementation of neoliberalism. For a new generation, especially for younger members of the Black Freedom Movement, it is now common to discuss the Clinton administration’s 1994 crime bill, Welfare reform, NAFTA, and imperialism abroad. Hillary Clinton’s now famous interview where she used the term “super predator” revels how instrumental she was in the marketing and implementation of her husband’s polices. Her record as a First Lady, board member of Wal-Mart, and senator, along with the large corporate donations she has received, are why Hillary Clinton so far has been having a hard time convincing Sanders supporters to join her campaign. Sanders supporters and the candidate himself, now question the economic growth associated with this “high point” in national level Democratic Party leadership: the Clinton years.

Lessons from the Jesse Jackson Campaigns

Bernie Sanders has now implicitly conceded that he will not win the nomination and that fact poses interesting questions for the Left in our struggle to build an independent political party. The Jesse Jackson presidential campaigns, and in particular the 1984 Democratic National Convention, gives us some insight into what Bernie may be able to achieve in Philadelphia and what may happen to most of his supporters afterwards. When Jessie Jackson ran in 1984, he, like Sanders, went into the convention disavowing all intentions to run as an independent. Both promised a contested convention where they would attempt to shape the Party’s platform, boosted by a ‘Dream Team’ – Jesse enlisted Ron Brown for his showdown. During the second day of the 1984 DNC, Jackson hoped to test his theory that the Democrats would have to bargain with him for the Black and progressive votes in order for Mondale to win. Jackson and his delegates demanded a platform that promised voting rights, affirmative action, a drastic reduction in U.S. defense spending, and an end to US intervention in Latin America. But the Party showed no inclination to bargain with Jackson besides tokenly granting acknowledgement of the need for affirmative action and argued instead that neoliberalism, austerity, and militarism were necessary, regardless of the cost to U.S. workers and the poor. Though Jackson brought 2 million black voters into the Democratic party by his own estimate, he had little to no effect on the Party’s vision, and the Democrats look to do this again with Bernie and young voters.

The Democratic Party has never been the source of working class gains. At times it claims to represent social movements and takes credit for doling out reforms actually won by mass challenges to the system. Its function in times of struggle is to make sure that movements work within the confines of the Democratic Party machine and that their demands are ones acceptable to the Party establishment. The Democratic Party delivers only to the degree that capitalism will allow. Unlike Jackson though, Sanders is not running at a quiet moment in social struggle. That difference will likely be the biggest factor in any strategy aimed at winning his supporters toward independent politics.
Fighting Against the “Local Take Over of the Democratic Party” Strategy

Sanders’s campaign proves to the true Left that the Democratic Party cannot be used as a “vehicle” for the changes that working people need. This is a point that the Left needs to emphasize to Sanders’s supporters. Many of them are fresh activists that hold illusions in the “reformability” of the Democratic Party. Many of them believe that if poor and working class people, especially people of color, are inspired to vote by a candidate speaking to their concerns, that a progressive take over at the local level is possible, if not inevitable. Groups like the Working Families Party (WFP) and United Working Families (UWF) are hoping to use the momentum around Sanders to elect “Left” Democrats. In places like St. Louis and Chicago, Bernie groups have now morphed into explicit mobilization engines for local “progressive” Democrats. In support of this strategy, Sanders endorsed approximately twelve Democrats despite his own failed experience trying to “take over the Party.”

Many justify working within the Democratic Party because they believe that local Democratic Parties are easier to ‘take over’ than the national. Interestingly, the WFP’s own strategy of orienting to Sanders’s supporters has lost them union funding in New York due to many unions continuing to work with corporate Democrats like Cuomo and Clinton. In Chicago, the UWF began as a coalition to lead the fight over a living wage ordinance. The coalition struggled to pass a living wage ordinance in the city council for “big box” stores moving into the city. Despite initially passing, Mayor Daley vetoed the bill and then strong-armed enough aldermen, so that an override of the veto fell just three votes shy. The unions vowed revenge and backed nine pro-living wage city council candidates who were elected to office. But as Micah Uetricht of the Nation wrote:

“...the groups soon found out that just because the unions had elected these aldermen didn’t mean they felt any sense of loyalty to a progressive agenda. Some of the newly elected council members quickly realized that life was much easier on the mayor’s side—and progressive forces had neither carrot nor stick to convince them otherwise.”

“The Democratic Party cannot be used as a ‘vehicle’ for the changes that working people need.”

Groups like the Working Families Party, that employ an ‘inside-outside’ strategy, serve to repair the relationship between movements and the Party in times of struggle and give Left cover for corporate politicians. But this strategy merely perpetuates the lie that the Democratic Party actually holds progressive values. In actuality, many cities in America have only one party in control, operating as unchecked machines controlled by local powerbrokers, and do not entertain Left vs. Right tug-o-wars. Local dominant parties are connected to local businesses, unions, and universities who are invested in the current system. Attempting to “take over the Party” means, for example, taking on the charter schools that are sponsored by Universities or the land developers who receive tax abatements and Tax-Incremental Financing (TIFs) through their cronyism. These powerful and wealthy interests receive benefits at the local level from the corporate arrangements of the Party. Even unpaid ward level positions, which seem easy to take over and have minimal responsibilities, play the important role of gatekeeper between local business elites and local politicians. The local Democratic Party establishment oppose activists running independently of the Party, regardless of their platform, because it is a threat to their personal connections to candidates who, in return for support, help with jobs, licenses, and other perks.

Local Electoral Initiative for 2017 and 2018

By building the strongest possible independent left-wing challenges to the Democrats in the 2017 and 2018 aldermanic/councilman elections across the country, the Left can help prepare the way for the creation of a new party as a powerful example that a political alternative is possible. Such a united electoral strategy can reinforce the lessons learned about the undemocratic and corporate nature of the Party from previous movements and most significantly the experience of Sanders running within that party. There will be a massive disappointment in the Sanders’s campaign after the Democratic National Convention. Many will feel betrayed watching Sanders endorse a corporate Democrat. That experience will be valuable in the struggle for building an independent party as long as we present an alternative for his supporters to pivot towards. Shortly after the convention, socialist groups and organizations inspired by the Sanders campaign need to hold a conference with the explicit purpose of building democratic structures and determining the needed logistical support and priority campaigns based on the political environment in specific cities and towns.

“United Front” Tactics

The building of a mass movement for an independent party will not happen overnight, and, it may mean working with various local Left Progressive groups, many of which see the “Sanders moment” as a way to boost their membership. The Left should be interested in winning over their supporters and not their leadership. Within the context of increased attacks on working people’s living conditions, the local “progressive” Democratic politicians will feel pressure to fight alongside their constituents, however piecemeal it may be. Their reluctance should be called out as should the pressure to “toe the line” coming from the local Party establishment. Even though the aim is to break ordinary people from the Democratic Party and towards revolutionary ideas, it will only happen through struggle and their experience with betrayal by reformists.

Organizational independence and political clarity is of the utmost importance when working with Democratic Party aligned groups and politicians. Endorsing “progressive” Democrats during this period may temporarily draw socialists close to politician’s supporters, but would only breed illusion in the “reformability” of the Party no matter how much those politicians speak about “challenging on the establishment.” On the one hand socialists will need to stay close to Democratic Party aligned groups and politicians that are drawing the attention of working people, attempting to move their supporters into struggle around Sanders’s demands outside of the Democratic Party banner and arguing ultimately for a break from the Party – all while also building a political base within the community through meetings and campaigns. Leon Trotsky’s 1922 report, “On the United Front”, lays out the subjective basis for this type of orientation:

“Does the united front extend only to the working masses or does it also include the opportunist leaders? The very posing of this question is a product of misunderstanding. If we were able simply to unite the working masses around our own banner or around our practical immediate slogans, and skip over reformist organizations, whether party or trade union, that would of course be the best thing in the world. But then the very question of the united front would not exist in its present form.

“The question arises from this, that certain very important sections of the working class belong to reformist organizations or support them. Their present experience is still insufficient to enable them to break with the reformist organizations and join us. It may be precisely after engaging in those mass activities, which are on the order of the day, that a major change will take place in this connection.”

Bring Labor Back into Struggle

The conflicts between rank and file union members and their heads have been exposed by this current presidential campaign. The union movement in the US has been decimated by globalization, neoliberal ideological and material attacks on workers, and the loss of manufacturing jobs, which has brought overall union membership levels to their lowest since 1916. The lack of militancy among unions has been expressed best by the fact that since the beginning of 2007-8 economic crisis, which produced increased attacks on unions, it has been students and the non-unionized that have moved into struggle. Similar to the balancing act SEIU did in 2011, supporting Occupy on the one hand and organizing Occupy activists and their base to support President Obama, many labor union internationals have endorsed Hillary Clinton.

‘Labor for Bernie’, a group of about 10,000 union members from different unions across the country acting independently from Sanders’s official campaign, formed in opposition to their leadership’s endorsement of Clinton. Early on in the primary season, Hillary was able to secure the backing of unions, which together encompass two-thirds of American union members. The endorsement of Hillary by the SEIU leadership, a union that represents nearly two million workers and which spearheaded the nationwide “Fight for 15” and “Faculty Forward” campaigns, was especially ironic considering her former position as a six term director of Wal-Mart and her outspoken opposition of $15 an hour federal minimum wage.[i] American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) also endorsed Hillary, to the consternation of many of their members. Many AFGE members signed onto Labor for Bernie and organized to push their leadership against an early endorsement of Hillary. Communications Workers of America (CWA), opposed to Hillary, pushed their leadership to put out a poll of its members’ choice, which Sanders overwhelmingly won. This could be the beginning of grassroots insurgent campaigns within unions aimed at reviving labor militancy.

“The endorsement of Hillary by the SEIU leadership was especially ironic considering her former position as a six term director of Wal-Mart and her outspoken opposition of $15 an hour federal minimum wage.”

It is imperative for this divide to produce insurgent campaigns against their leadership linked to the creation of new political party. This can happen as long has the left organizing around a clear and compelling strategy. Bob Crow, the general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) in the UK, said:

"Before we can build a new party [for the trade unions] then we need to rebuild the trade unions…

“We can’t separate the trade union and the political path. We can have a great shop stewards’ movement that can get pay raises and so on, but when the economy goes down, those gains are taken back. That’s why I argue we need not just new militant trade unionism but an alternative political party."

The National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN-Britain), initiated by supporters of the Committee of Workers International in the United Kingdom and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, was an attempt to organize a network of activist union members to increase militancy by going around the conservative leadership. A shop steward is a union member that is typically elected, with the role of providing representation of workers’ interests to management. Because of this position’s close contact with rank-and-file workers, shop stewards can play an important role in arguing for militant approaches to grievances. In a few union locals, shop stewards exist as a council instead of individual representatives. Because Labor for Bernie is already organized across different unions, and includes elected union leadership like shop stewards united around union democracy, this could be the framework of something similar in the States.

In addition to organizing across unions, it will be necessary to create local based shop steward-like councils that exist with community members, inspired by Sanders and subsequent campaigns and social movements that may arise. The lack of union engagement with social movements is a symptom of the union leadership’s commitment to the Democratic Party. The ‘Hands Up, Don’t Ship!’ Minneapolis UPS workers protest, in which workers refused to ship equipment destined to Missouri police departments, as well as the Oakland Port shut down in solidarity with the Ferguson Uprising, were (unfortunately) rare examples of radical solidarity. Shop steward councils need to be formed between radicalized union members and Bernie inspired groups, where there are signs that many of its members are ready to move into struggle around Sanders’s demands. Councils are a very good way to build union and non-union cadres and provide space for debate and unity of action.

Conclusion

* Given the current political environment and the energy behind Bernie, socialists need to seize this moment to build the framework for an independent working class party

* Other Democratic front groups are also recognizing this need, but are formulating strategies to bring newly radicalized constituents back into the Party

* By anticipating their methods (focusing on local races, endorsing “Left” Democrats), we can adopt strategies like reviving militant Labor through shop stewards networks and maintaining engagement with Sanders’ supporters in community assemblies to build momentum for independent electoral runs

* This isn’t solely an electoral strategy however—it is about building community level structures for activation and accountability that the Democrats and their front groups have never been able to master

* The mobilization of working peoples behind Bernie’s platform suggests the fire is there if we work to “capture it”

History is both on our side and against us. At the same time that the past few years have shown that ordinary people are ready to move in struggle, and are open to socialist ideas, we are faced with the reality that the forces on our side are weak compared to the tasks ahead of us. Our immediate goal must be to rebuild a powerful and militant Left in the US. The only reason why the American and Global ruling class has been able to get away with obscene inequality and systemic racism has been due to the Left’s political weakness.

Ashton Rome is a member of Socialist Alternative.

[i] In Jesse’s 1988 run, some local unions like the U.A.W. Local 72 in Kenosha, WI backed Jesse in opposition to their union international after he organized a rally against de-industrialization outside an American Motors Plant in the city. Because Jesse frequently joined union picket lines and spoke out against corporate greed, he was able to secure significant electoral support from both white and black trade unionists.

Do you need and appreciate Black Agenda Report articles. Please click on the DONATE icon, and help us out, if you can.

More Stories