Response and Self-Criticism

Dear Brother Ray,
Since my initial thoughts on the Bernie Sanders
Campaign were published in newsletter #93, I, like all
of us, have borne witness to the dynamics within and
around the Democratic Party of the United States as
the campaign for Democratic candidate [for President]
of the United States has been reduced to a fierce contest
between two trends, an openly reactionary trend,
represented by Hillary Clinton, and a progressive
reformist trend represented by Bernie Sanders.
As we know, the Democratic Party itself is a tool of
finance capital, and as your analysis in the latest
newsletter (#95) makes clear, US finance capital is
flexing its muscle in both wings of the “Republicrat”
apparatus to ensure that its interests are reflected in
“parliamentary politics” in the US. So complete is the
“Republicrat” apparatus’ control of the discourse in this
country, that at the outset of the Sanders Campaign
my reaction was one of total rejectionism not only of
the significance of the Bernie Sanders Campaign, in
spite of its significance being made increasingly clear
by its dialectical opposite, the fascistic Donald Trump
campaign, both of which are indicative of the erosion of
the legitimacy of Wall Street “politics as usual” in the US.
Since then, it has become clear that no matter how much
the “Republicrat” apparatus would like to have Trump
and Sanders relegated to two equally unacceptable
“extremes” (!) … both candidates have actual mass
support. Trump’s support shows that even if fascism
is not imminent in the United States at present, it has
begun to put down roots in preparation for a sharpening
of the contradictions. Sanders’ support, contrary to my
initial dismissiveness, has been revealed through the
media and through all contacts of mine around the
United States – no matter how dismissive they also
were of the Sanders Campaign at first – to represent
a genuine mass resentment of rule by Wall Street and
the big banks. Even relatively moderate US citizens
I know of oppressor nation background have not only
been inspired by Sanders’ Campaign, but in many
cases through it have been taught to resent Hillary
Clinton and her corporate sponsors, in spite of Clinton’s
unearned status as a “feminist” icon.
On an unprecedented scale, one hears talk of rejecting
the Democratic candidate if they fail to meet the
aspirations of the people in favour of a write-in campaign
for Sanders. On an unprecedented scale, one hears talk
of the Democrats and their Wall Street backers as being
a force which can be combated from the left. All of this
is contrary to my defeatist predictions.
It was my view that because the Democratic Party will
not peacefully accede control of its political line even to
moderate and well-intentioned reformists like Bernie
Sanders, that the campaign should be ignored entirely
on the grounds that “pure” revolutionaries must “draw
a line in the sand” between us and those who work to
“better the system.” This was, as you pointed out in your
response in Newsletter #93, contrary to the teachings of
Comrade Lenin, and a prime example of an “ultra-left”
deviation from the correct Marxist-Leninist line.
In an academic “left” context, where one is surrounded
by careerists with petty bourgeois aspirations and
only the vaguest nominal “socialist” commitments, it is
easy to lose sight of the bigger picture and believe that
simple posturing as the “harshest” critic of the system
is sufficient to fulfill our duty to the class and to history.
This was a grave error on my part. As you pointed out
in the aforementioned newsletter (#93), and again in
newsletter #94, Comrade Lenin taught us that tactical
compromises must be made in order to push forward
existing struggle and expose the shortcomings of the
system. Our duty is not to individually feel ourselves
more clever than professional pundits in the mainstream
media, but to engage in agitation among the masses
to lead them towards a radically new understanding
of their relationship to the system. As you said, for
much of the 99% in the United States, Bernie Sanders
“represents a step, though a small one” forward.
Taking heed of your advice, reinforced by words of
encouragement from others taking a “bird’s eye view”
to US politics, I have made every effort to ensure
your analysis of the Sanders Campaign is read by as
wide an audience as possible. I have encouraged its
distribution on my humble blog, Old Relations Collapse
(oldrelationscollapse.wordpress.com), in the hope that
they will reach a wider audience, both in the US and
around the world.
As we have both witnessed, discussion around the
Sanders Campaign continues to centre on many
important issues, from his dismal track record on
US imperialism to his increasingly sharp rhetoric
at home aimed at the Wall Street power behind the
Democratic Party and their favoured candidate, Hillary
Clinton. You were indeed right when you said that
we must make compromises. And concerted tactics of
support for the Sanders Campaign and its progressive
stance against Wall Street rule and criticism of the
shortcomings of Sanders are just the sort of compromise
revolutionaries in the US must make. [This will] push
forward a conversation about revolutionary change, a
conversation which is increasingly meaningful to the
millions of supporters of Bernie Sanders as they witness
a propaganda war carried out by the capitalist class
against the candidate which represents their immediate
aspirations.
In struggle,
Muhsin Y.