No ideas, but all the motivation.
All the reasons to do it yet no reason at all.
Like a marathon, hitting a wall.
Just spit it out,
Put it on the page! Put it on the Page!
Forget if it makes sense, forget the grammar and spell checks.
Fuck making sense.
Just put it on the page,
Gibberish or garbage is better than nothing.
Just put something on the page.
Bernie in Carson, CA 2016, his first rally in California.
This might seem frivolous to my more radical followers, but the fact is a lot of people in the world who identify as “liberal” or “progressive” even, but in fact they are socialists.
Now, those of us who are already radicalized, we understand the key difference is whether or not someone believes in the labor theory of value. If you think labor generates wealth and therefore the workers should be in control of the wealth they generate, then congratulations you are a socialist.
But there are many who have other socialist values, (a hatred of sexism, war, racism, imperialism etc) but still call themselves liberal. This often caused by a cold war era disdain for socialism left in the mouths of older generations, and is perpetuated by the establishment class’ control over the dialogue.
The real difference can be summed up in the divide we see between Warren and Sanders and the supporters of what some might call the “Third Way.”
Third way democrats, Warren supporters, and most liberals will
This is what I think sums up the key difference between Liberals and Socialists, aside from belief in the labor theory of value. Liberals will intellecutalize why there will always be some kind of poverty, while socialists will always intellectualize how to eradicate poverty.
So, if you are not sure if you are a liberal or a socialist, ask yourself, do you think poverty has to exist?
If you believe poverty does not have to exist and can be eradicated, especially through collective action, then congratulations, you are probably a socialist.
There are some who would argue that socialist organizations should not sing songs like the Internationale anymore because it can come across as “cultish.” My DSA chapter used to stand up and sing songs at the end of our meetings, songs like the Internationale, The Red Flag, Which Side Are You On, and Solidarity Forever. I for one miss this practice and would like us to bring it back.
While I can admit that I see how this can feel cultish group think or just plain weird to some people, to me it’s the ritual I need.
I am not a church going man, nor do I believe in astrology or anything metaphysical. I do meditate and occasionally burn incense but I am not a praying man. I have no rituals or practices that can help one’s self-care and can help build a community around oneself other than my yoga, which to me is a purely physical practice, or my meditation, which I practice for mental clarity.
No, I am denied the majesty of joining in on church hymns and thus I am denied the feeling of a sense of meaning drawn from a star chart, from praying, or from a bible.
While I may not believe in God or prayer, I do not see why I should be denied the sanctity of ritual and the sense of belonging that comes from singing out your beliefs with others. Say what you will about religion but I do think there is something powerful in the hymn, singing in church gives one a feeling of self-expression and a sense of belonging.
I may not feel that when my family drags me to church and they start singing “This little light of mine,” but I damn sure feel it every time me and the comrades sing the Internationale.
While it is cultish for some, for others it is supplemental, a way to replace organized religion with socialist organization and still feel the power of communal ritual.
Does it spark the same feeling in everyone? No, and it is understandable why it’s not for everyone. All I am saying is that I don’t think I should be denied the benefits of ritual or community just because I have a different take on things. The Internationale brings a tear to my eye and puts power into my heart, and it makes me feel a little less alone in this dark, painful place we call life, especially when I’m singing it with others.
That has to count for something.
Reading a book alone in the Redwood Forrest
On the observational scale,
I do sit here in the redwoods in lotus pose,
with a copy of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
on a stack of logs next to me.
What is the catch?
Is that but the paranoid disillusionment
of the redneck hippies near by
just now learning that they aren’t the real rebels?
They are not heroes,
They can only dream of being such.
The true meaning of center,
of the power of human capability,
If only imagined,
that is all we are,
Then that is the best
and the worst
of our imaginations.
Because one participates in organizing for electoral politics does not mean one has put all their faith in reform.
Some treat electoralism as a form of base building, and given the current political landscape it is the kind of base building that can reach the most people in the fastest way.
However, just because one is supporting a candidate or ballot measure does not mean they have put all their hopes in changing the system that way.
Reformists believe in changing the system from the inside. Electoralists understand however understand that change is unlikely to happen from the outside without massive public pressure that is also rank and file. Electoralists understand that elections can be used to base build and can chip away at the power of capital in one is both victorious and consistent after that victory. For example, a reactionary anti woman republican will have a much harder time gutting abortion rights or taking away welfare if he has to worry about losing his seat to a socialist, and when he loses his seat they must live with the reality that a socialist is now in office making policy decisions.
Of course, one cannot depend on that socialist in office alone to make all the right decisions, not without a huge base constantly putting pressure on them to do the right thing.
If that elected socialist demonstrates good practice they will push for policies that direct power away from capital and expand social services. The odds of them going full Lenin and leading us to a revolution are microscopically slim, but their base can now be called on to show up for strike solidarity and anti racist protests. They can be called on to pressure and bird-dog other elected officials to act on climate change.
This is not what reformists believe. Pure reformists believe that we can count on elected officials to do their jobs once elected. There is no room for an interest in base building for a revolution if one is counting on reform alone to liberate the working class. Reformists only care about the bottom line, but electoralists know that they can use the base they have built from the campaign they have organized to build a genuine alternative to the capitalist system.
To reject electoralism because of a false equivalency to reformism hurts us more than it will help.
Plus, more elections should be what ever socialists push for. We need more elections, more mass participation, more things should be put to a public vote. The more we are voting the more we are in control of our communities. This is the goal of socialism and communism, democratic control over what affects our daily lives, that is going to mean lots of voting in lots of elections.
Another world is possible, but we need to get our practice in now. Until we have a mass movement behind us, we have no other choice than to build our base any way we can.
What Place Do The Artists Have in Revolution?
PRODUCE!
Must produce content!
For fame,
For a following,
Quite literally and painfully so,
thanks to the stench of both words.
To produce is to manufacture,
To manufacture is to produce.
The workers are the ones who produce,
So the artists,
the writers,
the creators,
we are the workers to.
We are a part of that thing called revolution,
And we must forgive Marx for forgetting us.
Artists!
Artists of the world, unite!
We have nothing to lose but our chains,
We have everything to gain
when we gain the freedom to create!
As an active DSA member I hear this word all the time, almost as much as I hear the words “organizing” and “socialism.” I think active leftists in all organizations can relate to this, but I think the attack of something being “undemocratic” is overused.
Now I am not suggesting in any way we not call out undemocratic behavior, what I am saying is we need to acknowledge that being called “undemocratic” is the heaviest attack you can lay against someone in an organization that is supposed to be democratic. That is not something to take lightly.
Behavior that is genuinely undemocratic is something that an elected official does not have the authority to do or is an action that goes out of its way to side step democratic procedures. That does not stop people from throwing the term around when a comrade does something that they simply do not agree with.
Most of the time what is called ‘undemocratic behavior’ is actually just people disagreeing with how something was done, or it is people letting personal differences effect their outlook on what is good for their organization. If we attack every single thing or person we disagree with as ‘undemocratic’ then the word will lose all meaning. It will be a boy who called wolf situation, the moment we actually have to face the consequences of someone doing something undemocratic we will be ill prepared to handle it.
An action is only undemocratic if it goes out of its way to defy democratic principles, unless it is intentionally sidestepping the consent or consensus of the voting body, the odds are it was not “undemocratic.”
I am not saying hold your tongue when you see genuinely undemocratic behavior, all I am asking is that people remember that in organizations that pride themselves on democracy, it is not a term to be taken lightly.
