Whether Bernie’s run for the Democratic
Party nomination has started a revolution or will soon be forgotten ultimately
depends on its ability to form alliances with social groups outside the
Democratic Party orbit. This means
forming alliances with groups that liberal Democrats love to disparage: Tea Partiers,
religious groups, Trump supporters, militias and kindred anti-establishment
groups. Paradoxical as it may sound,
forming alliances that cross over socio-economic class lines is a key to a
successful social movement, and eventually a successful social revolution.
To successfully
challenge the status quo, a movement needs to effectively challenge the
existing power structures underlying the status, even if that challenge is initially
defeated. Take for example the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya in the 1950s. It was
brutally defeated by the Brits, leaving a really dark spot on the British
history comparable to Nazi war crimes.
The fact that the Brits have not been tried for their war crimes in Kenya
illustrates Herman Goering’s line in Nuremberg that international justice is but
victors’ justice. But I am
digressing. The important lesson of the
Mau Mau Uprising is that it challenged the colonial power structures to the
point that a few years later the Brits gave up their colonial rule in Kenya,
which led to the country's independence.
One
of the key elements underpinning British colonial rule in Kenya was ethnic divisions
of the indigenous population, intentionally exacerbated by the colonial
administration. The Mau Mau Uprising started
as a rebellion of the rural Kikuyu groups forced off the land by the white
settlers, but eventually started to form alliances with the nascent urban
working class. Although Mau Mau failed to bridge the internal ethnic divisions and
were eventually defeated in the battle fields, their sent a signal to the British
colonial administration that if the business as usual continues, the Brits will
not be able to hold for long and the country may go Communist. So they decided
to support more moderate Kenyan nationalist factions led by Jomo Kenyatta
instead, and eventually conceding to Kenya’s national independence shortly
after suppressing the Mau Mau Uprising.
A similar
lesson can be learned from the Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King.
The movement was tolerated and even revered by the white liberal establishment
until MLK started emphasizing the class dimension of Black poverty. That
challenged the fundamental power structure of the US society - the rule of the
"market" and resultant class stratification. Consequently, MLK got
assassinated, nominally by a right wing lunatic while the white liberal
establishment was looking the other way.
To be sure, the success of
Kenya’s nationalists and US Civil Rights movement was aided by international
power struggle aka ‘Cold War.” The “specter
of Communism haunting the world” was real and Western bourgeoisie really feared
it. They were ready to make some
concessions to moderate social movements stave off more radical ones. Once that specter faded, so did the
willingness of the bourgeoisie to compromise.
However,
the lesson from these past struggles is that to pose a successful challenge to
the status quo power structures, a protest movement must counter the divide and
rule policies through which these power structures maintain their
hegemony. Liberal identity politics based
on socio-demographic characteristics: women, Blacks, Whites, gay, religion etc.
is a part of that divide and rule strategy that underpins the neoliberal
hegemony of the "free" market.
This identity politics redefines the social effects of the market system
as the effects of individual failures: lack of proper education or work ethics,
prejudice, ignorance and the like.
Although fringe radicals never
ceased to emphasize the centrality of social class and the market in the system
of inequality and exploitation, the mainstream liberals remained willingly oblivious
to it in favor of their infatuation with identity politics memes. Bernie Sanders is the first mainstream political
figure that reintroduced the centrality of capitalist markets and socio-economic
class to the mainstream political discourse.
Even his liberal detractors noticed that, and got pretty much scared by
it I suppose. But Bernie did something
of far greater importance for a successful revolution – he started crossing
identity politics divisions reaching out to groups typically shunned by liberal
Democrats, such as white working class, Christian groups, or even gun owners or
at least refusing to alienate them if not actually courting them).
This explains why the
establishment, especially the liberal establishment, is so hell bent to defeat
Bernie’s challenge. Liberal Democrats
play the role the Kenyan natives fighting alongside the British against the Mau
Mau insurgents. Or to use an analogy that
is closer to home – quislings collaborating with enemy to help it conquer their
own country.
To make a difference, Bernie’s
revolution needs to credibly challenge the tyranny of the "free"
market and its intimate connection to power. The key word here is credible, as
in credible threat. A bunch of middle class kids engaged in identity politics
are not credible threat to the status quo, not even close, whereas a bunch of
dispossessed peasants joining forces with urban workers in Kenya posed such a
credible threat to the oligarchy. It follows that to credibly challenge the
neoliberal hegemony, Bernie’s revolution must effectively undo the years of divide
and conquer identity politics that brought this hegemony in the fists place. This means forming strategic alliances with
groups traditionally disparaged shunned by liberal Democrats – white working
class supporting Trump, Christian groups, militias and similar
anti-establishment groups.
I
am not, of course, suggesting converting members of these groups to the liberal
or radical leftist faith, force them to abandon their core values and beliefs
in favor of ours, or engage in any other form of morality play. What I suggest instead is that instead of
trying to convert them – try to DO something with them instead, something that
will further common political and economic interests. I do not need to believe in the supernatural
or in the magic effects of guns on public safety to work with church goers and
gun owners to save my town from flood or tornado. In such situations, people set aside their
ideological differences and work together to secure what is best for their interest.
At
this point, the common interest of people who work for a living, instead of collecting
rent form their social position and status (investors, CEOs, experts, superstar
professionals and academics, etc.), is to break the neoliberal hegemony that
threatens their living standards.
However, to effectively fight that hegemony, people who work for a
living need an “army” i.e. a political party.
At this point, they do not have such a party, because the system is
monopolized by two parties that are controlled by neoliberal factions service
the interests of the neoliberal elite that lives off collecting rent from their
social position and status. This means
that either a new party should be created or the neoliberal elite in both
parties taken away from the helms of both parties.
What
does it men in practical terms? What is
to be done? The long term strategy should
involve what in social movement literature is called “frame bridging” or
forming tactical alliances with groups that may not share the movement’s ideology,
but share some of its goals – groups that are typically shunned by liberal
Democrats This may include different anti-establishment players in different
regions, Christian groups, veteran groups, gun owner clubs, libertarians, even
militias – as long as everyone is willing to cooperate to achieve common
objectives while respecting each other ideological differences.
The
short term strategy, in turn should involve not resisting challengers to the
neoliberal hegemony that comes from different sides. In this election year,
Trump is clearly a challenge to the neoliberal hegemony, so it makes sense for
those who take Bernie’s revolution seriously not to interfere with that
challenge, even though they may feel revolted by what he says on the
stump. Sort of like Americans and
Russians disliking each other but not interfering with each other’s military
operations against ISIS. A logical
consequence for Bernie’s “revolutionaries” is to vote for ANYONE BUT CLINTON should
she gets the Democratic Party nomination.
This means the typical approach of holding one’s note and voting for the
lesser evil – in this instance Trump – or for those who do not have the stomach
for such strong odors – voting for Jill Stein.
To be sure, Jill has not chance of winning the election, but she has the
power of leveraging the opposition to neoliberal elite in the Democratic Party. However, the benefit for voting for Jill Stein
instead of Trump is that that it creates a visible public record of opposition against
neoliberal elite in the Democratic party, instead of wasting that vote by
voting for Trump or not voting at all.
The
ANYONE BUT CLINTON vote is the move that makes most tactical sense for Bernie’s “revolutionaries”
– so do not waste that opportunity. Do
not be duped by liberal quislings in the Democratic Party. Do not support collaborators with your class
enemies. Make alliances with forces that
challenge your class enemies, or their quislings in both parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment