Webb claims in his typical manner of creating and setting up strawmen to knock down: "A few on the left say that the absence of a mass movement on the scale of the 1930s and 1960s stems from the fact that millions of Americans still believe the president is an agent of progressive change."
Who is saying this? As usual, Webb doesn't tell us. And he can't, because this isn't true.
What is true is that Sam Webb has helped create an image for Obama that doesn't fit with the reality of who, and what, Obama really is: A Wall Street flim-flam man and con-artist who intentionally set out to deceive and hoodwink people into voting for him.
Here, in what Webb is trying to pass off as "analysis," we have him still supporting the imperialist warmonger Obama:
"We have to appreciate that the president operates in a complex of competing class and social forces, some of which (namely the extreme right) are determined to sabotage his presidency."
Obama has done in his own presidency; Webb joins with the Democrats in continuing to push Obama on the working class even though Obama--- because of his own lies and deceit to get elected and then his anti-people, anti-working class Wall Street agenda--- now can't get re-elected, and here we have Webb trying to pin the blame for Obama's re-election woes on those of us working to Primary Obama and trying create a third party alternative to Wall Street's "two-party trap" set for the working class.
What is there from the Obama presidency that working people and the working class should "appreciate?"
Wars?
Rising food, gas and home heating fuel prices?
Massive unemployment?
Continuing home foreclosures and evictions?
Rising tuitions at colleges and universities?
Working people being forced to pay, through government dictate, exorbitant prices that further enrich the health insurance industry?
We are supposed to "appreciate" the shafting Obama and the Democrats are giving working people which has created what Webb would like us to believe to be this great big "complex" problem that is of the making by Republicans and the ultra-right when Obama is part of the ultra right--- a fact Webb refuses to acknowledge.
Webb would like us to believe that the New Deal and Civil Rights legislation were not the result of organized, unrelenting and stubborn pressure of the people--- but, rather, some quirks that happened quite by chance when the fact of the matter is the leaders of these movements knew exactly what they were after and organized for the victories resulting. Of course, if Webb acknowledged this, he would have to acknowledge the fact that he has steered the Communist Party out of mass struggles and into the hands of Obama and the Democrats enabling the Wall Street coupon clippers to prey upon workers and pick our bones clean.
Why isn't Sam Webb asking working people:
How is Barack Obama's Wall Street war economy working for you?
Webb, in his "analysis" once again engages in further complicating the issues and then turns around and says, "It's complicated."
One has to wonder what would motivate the head of any Communist Party to support a Wall Street warmonger for any office let alone the presidency of the United States as CPUSA Chair Sam Webb does.
No working class can advance with its Communist Party supporting Wall Street's imperialist agenda. And make no mistake; there is no way one can support Obama without supporting his imperialist Wall Street agenda of wars abroad and austerity measures forced on the working class to pay for these dirty wars. How can one distinguish and separate Obama from his Wall Street agenda--- the two are inseparably one connected whole. Support and vote for Obama and what are you going to get? More wars; more misery caused by austerity measures being used to drive down the standard of living of working people. If Webb expects working people to get anything more than wars and poverty from Barack Obama let him explain what there is to be had and what--- exactly--- it is going to take to get this.
A hallmark of Webb's analysis is the kind of vagueness inspired by George Lakoff. And, like an obedient Democrat, Webb keeps true--- offering no specifics when it comes to solutions because Webb understands that bringing forward specific solutions to the problems of working people will land him on the Dumb Donkey's shit list--- and there will be no more contributions paying for million-dollar remodeling projects where he can sit in the comfort of his easy chair "analyzing" the problems grassroots and rank-and-file activists are creating for Barack Obama--- again, Webb joins his new-found Wall Street friends in blaming the victims of Obama's policies for Obama's re-election problems.
Had Barack Obama made even a very modest attempt to deliver on the agenda he deceitfully led people to believe he was for, he would have no problems at all in getting re-elected.
Because of phony leftists like Sam Webb trying to cover-up for Obama and make excuses for his Wall Street agenda--- which is a course of Obama's own choosing--- we are very likely to get saddled with a Republican President, a Republican House and a Republican Senate who will deliver the full right-wing agenda Obama seeks a second-term to force down our throats.
Against Sam Webb's "better judgement," we can opt out of this scenario by pushing to dump Obama and building a third party working class based people's party as the alternative while taking to the streets.
Not coincidentally, Sam Webb has refused to comment on the need for mass action on the order of a General Strike--- apparently he is too busy encouraging working people to submit to employer lockouts instead of engaging in strikes and plant occupations as he has counseled for workers in the Red River Valley. There is no end to class collaboration and working class betrayal once one begins traveling down this road in supporting Wall Street's imperialist president.
Working people either engage in the class struggle or get swept under in it.
Kind of strange that Sam Webb doesn't explain how it is he came upon a million dollars to remodel his office but can't come up with the needed funds to bring the U.S. Peace Council into action.
Alan L. Maki
C0-chair,
Lake-of-the-Woods Communist Club
http://peoplesworld.org/it-s-complicated-president-obama-and-mass-movement-building/
It’s complicated: President Obama
and mass movement building
By Sam Webb
A few on the left say that the absence of a mass movement on the scale of the 1930s and 1960s stems from the fact that millions of Americans still believe the president is an agent of progressive change.
What follows from this theory is the role of left and progressive people is to ruthlessly unmask the politics and progressive pretentions of the president, which in turn will melt away people's illusions in him and trigger a mass upsurge throughout the country.
But is this the case?
I don't think so. And I will tell you why.
The building of a mass movement on the scale of the 1930s or 1960s is a complicated process. A wide-angle lens is needed to capture its many sides.
Before we lay responsibility for the inadequate scale of today's movement on the shoulders of the president, we have to factor in the impact of three decades of right-wing ideological onslaught.
We have to consider the structural changes in the U.S. economy that have economically devastated, socially atomized and politically weakened traditional centers of working class and people's power.
We have to take into account the unprecedented attack against African Americans and other communities of color, dating back to the election of Reagan.
We have to acknowledge the reality of a smaller labor movement, in large measure the result of economic downsizing, production relocation and a fierce right- wing anti-labor offensive.
We have to factor in the impact of the ideological intensification of racism, male supremacy, immigrant-bashing and homophobia in recent years on popular consciousness.
We have to include in our political calculus the negative effects of capitalist-structured globalization on working-class consciousness, unity and capacity.
We have to bear in mind the consequences of the militarization of our society on our society.
We have to note the capitalist class's control and domination of the means of communication and education.
We have to recognize that people in the face of crises can opt for individualist as well as collective solutions.
We have to weigh in the force of habit and inertia.
We have to appreciate that the president operates in a complex of competing class and social forces, some of which (namely the extreme right) are determined to sabotage his presidency.
And we have to bring into bold relief the fact that the left and progressive movements are still too small to exert a decisive and sustained influence on the nation's political direction. Face it. We still preach to the choir.
The multifaceted nature of the process of change is not a reason to throw up our hands in frustration or to revert to simplified explanations, in this case presidential mis-leadership, for the difficulties of building a progressive mass movement.
Indeed, I would argue that today's movement has the potential to eclipse the popular movements of 1930s and 1960s in size, social composition, political consciousness and social power.
Who thought in 1920 or in 1950 that people's movements of enormous scope and strength would spring up and proceed to realign national politics a few years later?
But that is what happened as many foreseen and unforeseen factors came together in such a way that massive social explosions rocked the country and new chapters of progressive change entered the history books.
These movements had their own complicated factors to deal with, including the global rise of fascism in the 1930s.
Should we think that the process of progressive change and the building of a mass movement with transformative capacities would be any less complicated in our time or any less doable?
You know my answer.
The thing Sam Webb refuses to address is that the movements had a Communist Party providing able leadership.
For there to have been any continuation of what movement existed supporting Obama to carry through with advocating change the direction of needed change would have had to come from the CPUSA. And, by Webb's own admission he did nothing to encourage this kind of participation. In fact, by his own admission he participated in Obama's election celebrations and stood there on a street corner and cried in happiness instead of handing out leaflets about what needed to be done.
Now Webb turns around and blames the American people for not standing up for change when he knows full well the only time such change takes place is when the Communist Party leads the working class into action.
Alan L. Maki
Here is Sam Webb's response to me:
Millions make change
august 30 2011
The two main eras of progressive change in our country in the last century were accompanied by a broad and spirited upsurge of people.
In the Depression years, a powerful people's movement, in the forefront of which was the working class and its organized sector (trade unions), crystallized into a mighty force for social progress. It was the backbone of a series of people's legislative victories - Social Security, unemployment insurance, welfare benefits, the right to organize into unions, etc.
Three decades later a movement led by Martin Luther King broke the back of legal segregation and enacted civil rights laws, while at the same time inspiring a host of popular struggles that followed on its heels.
Both movements - of the 1930s and the 1960s - were diverse, mass, militant and spontaneous as well as organized. Both combined political action and mass action. And both, as mentioned, were decisive to the change process specific to their era.
In other words, had they not been on the scene at the time, progressive change would either not have occurred or occurred in a much more limited way.
Which brings me to the present. Following the recent debt agreement between the president and the Republicans, progressive and left voices were critical of the administration. Many felt that it gave up too much and got little in return.
There is truth here, but I'm not sure if that is main lesson that should be drawn from this deal.
For me what stands out is the inadequate mobilization of the American people in this struggle. To be sure, the seniors movement left its imprint on the process in so far as entitlement programs were not touched for the time being. But that shouldn't obscure the larger reality that too many Americans were onlookers, waiting to see what would happen behind closed doors in the nation's capital.
If this were a problem specific to only this struggle, it would be one thing, but it isn't. It dates back to the day after the election of Obama.
For whatever reasons, the level of mass activity at the national level hasn't approached that which took shape in the course of the 2008 election campaign. During the campaign mass activity was broad, grassroots, united and sustained over time. It brought millions into organized activity as well as influenced the thinking and actions of many more millions who went to the polls.
But it didn't carry over to the post-election period. And in not doing so it reduced the progressive potential of the Obama victory since then.
Social progress without mass pressure is never easy in a capitalist system. Capitalism is structured to resist change of a progressive and radical nature. But it is especially tough going in circumstances where the right wing controls many levers of power, as it currently does.
Indeed, without a powerful people's movement mobilizing millions and advancing a program of a progressive character, the political discourse will tack to the right and legislative victories will be few and far between, as in the present situation.
The political imperative of this moment, therefore, is clear: the quantitative and qualitative strengthening of the people's movement for progressive change.
Whether it happens depends on the human factor, that is, on what ordinary people do. Just as the initiatives and actions of the American people were an essential ingredient in the progressive-democratic thrust in the 1930s and 1960s, so too will the initiatives and actions of millions feeling the awful weight of this terrible and protracted economic crisis be essential in today's conditions.
Seize the time!
In the Depression years, a powerful people's movement, in the forefront of which was the working class and its organized sector (trade unions), crystallized into a mighty force for social progress. It was the backbone of a series of people's legislative victories - Social Security, unemployment insurance, welfare benefits, the right to organize into unions, etc.
Three decades later a movement led by Martin Luther King broke the back of legal segregation and enacted civil rights laws, while at the same time inspiring a host of popular struggles that followed on its heels.
Both movements - of the 1930s and the 1960s - were diverse, mass, militant and spontaneous as well as organized. Both combined political action and mass action. And both, as mentioned, were decisive to the change process specific to their era.
In other words, had they not been on the scene at the time, progressive change would either not have occurred or occurred in a much more limited way.
Which brings me to the present. Following the recent debt agreement between the president and the Republicans, progressive and left voices were critical of the administration. Many felt that it gave up too much and got little in return.
There is truth here, but I'm not sure if that is main lesson that should be drawn from this deal.
For me what stands out is the inadequate mobilization of the American people in this struggle. To be sure, the seniors movement left its imprint on the process in so far as entitlement programs were not touched for the time being. But that shouldn't obscure the larger reality that too many Americans were onlookers, waiting to see what would happen behind closed doors in the nation's capital.
If this were a problem specific to only this struggle, it would be one thing, but it isn't. It dates back to the day after the election of Obama.
For whatever reasons, the level of mass activity at the national level hasn't approached that which took shape in the course of the 2008 election campaign. During the campaign mass activity was broad, grassroots, united and sustained over time. It brought millions into organized activity as well as influenced the thinking and actions of many more millions who went to the polls.
But it didn't carry over to the post-election period. And in not doing so it reduced the progressive potential of the Obama victory since then.
Social progress without mass pressure is never easy in a capitalist system. Capitalism is structured to resist change of a progressive and radical nature. But it is especially tough going in circumstances where the right wing controls many levers of power, as it currently does.
Indeed, without a powerful people's movement mobilizing millions and advancing a program of a progressive character, the political discourse will tack to the right and legislative victories will be few and far between, as in the present situation.
The political imperative of this moment, therefore, is clear: the quantitative and qualitative strengthening of the people's movement for progressive change.
Whether it happens depends on the human factor, that is, on what ordinary people do. Just as the initiatives and actions of the American people were an essential ingredient in the progressive-democratic thrust in the 1930s and 1960s, so too will the initiatives and actions of millions feeling the awful weight of this terrible and protracted economic crisis be essential in today's conditions.
Seize the time!
Photo: Stand Up Chicago rally, June 14, 2011. PW
No comments:
Post a Comment