From: LeoCasey-AT-aol.com
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 23:03:29 -0500
Subject: Re: The NANAS


It would appear that Curtis Price has some issues with democratic socialism,
issues  based at least in part on experiences, some time ago, with the New
American Movement (NAM). He has chosen the venue of my comments on Noel
Ignatiev's pro-militia editorial, with its references to Ignatiev's Sojourner
Truth Organization (STO), including a passing mention of its intervention in
NAM, to make them. Price seems to be disappointed that NAM turned away from
the aspirations of some to be an American 'Il Manifesto', and that is his
right, although one may question what meaning those aspirations have when 'Il
Manifesto' itself was engaged in a similar major political self
reformulation. But there are some amazing leaps of logic and groundless
assertions which Price makes in the course of this process.

Price begins:
>There seems to me there is a striking convergence in method
>on the list between the Shining Path adherents and the
>'democratic socialists' on the militias. Both willfully distort, the
>difference being that the Stalin lovers are confronted while a
>deafening silence clouds the 'democratic socialists' when they
>engage in the same dishonest misrepresentations of their
>opponent's arguments to make their particular polemical points.

The inference here is that my comments concerning Ignatiev and STO are
somehow dishonest misrepresentations. But what exactly is the misrepresented?


1. First, we are told that "I have asked former NAM people locally about
their recollections of Ignatiev/STO's interventions in NAM and yes, it
appears STO acted disgracefully." Doesn't this statement go at least as far,
if not not farther, than the account I gave?
2. Then, "But STO was the only organization in the seventies who promoted and
distributed CLR James' works. It is in fact through STO that I first
discovered James and the Facing Reality pamphlets and why I will always have
a soft spot for STO." So who claimed that they didn't? Talk about non
sequiteurs. And, parenthetically, Price is just mistaken here that STO was
unique, based on his lack of knowledge about certain Trotskyist circles in
Detroit, as well around the journal Radical America.
3. "Furthermore," he continues, "whatever the problems of 'the white skin
priviledge' theory it was at least an attempt to address racism with-in the
working class, an issue both in theory and practice the whole 'democratic
socialist' mileau has made less than stellar contributions." The question I
raised, of course, was how meaningful and successful an attempt at addressing
racism it was -- a question which is hardly settled by arguing it was an
attempt. I think it is a revealing insight that one of the main originators
of this "white skin privilege" theory who, for decades, dismissed white
workers as hopelessly racist now embraces the militias, and does so while
openly admitting their white supremacist politics.
4. Finally, Price concludes, "You could look in vain through any 'democratic
socialist' literature for even an acknowledgement of the existence of this
problem (of racism among white workers), let alone a serious discussion of
the issue." Without defending for a moment the failures of American
democratic socialism in this regard, it should be noted that in direct
contradiction for Price's claim, DSA has published for close to a decade a
pamphlet by Cornel West on theories of racism which speaks openly and
explicitly of the failures of the American trade union movement and
democratic socialist tradition in addressing problems of racism. (There are
other pieces of literature, but this is the most widely known and sold.)

Is it necessary to point out that in this entire chain of assertions, some of
which are themselves mistaken and false, Price offers not one piece of
evidence to support his inference that I dishonestly misrepresented the
politics of Ignatiev and the STO? 

Price then moves on to "question how 'democratic' the 'democratic socialist'
mileau
is in practice," offering two anecdotes.
1."When I was a member of NAM, there was some local ward nomination of a
'progressive' delegate to the DP convention. NAM organized a contingent to go
to this meeting and sign up for membership on the spot, realizing quite
accurately that the local infrastructure of the DP was a complete hollow
shell and it was ripe for this type of 'intervention'. Now the 64 million
dollar question. How does this differ from some Leninist 'sect' packing a
meeting to shift the meeting around to it's own interests?"
What exactly were they supposed to do? This is a long discussion, but the way
in which the question is posed seems to rule out any possibility for
political intervention.
2. "Second anecdote. People from NAM who merged starry-eyed into DSOC to form
DSA now tell me what a disillusioning experience this was for them. Because
DSA did not allow any of the former NAM people into any significant
leadership. NAM was
evidentally cynically supposed to provide the fodder for an activist base of
what was a
paper-organization (DSOC)  while the old-guard DSOC types controlled the
organization.
Allegedly within a couple of years most of the leading NAM people exited
DSA..What
distressing naivete about the nature of social democracy and it's historical
role! NAM
wanted to be the equivilent of an American "Il Manifesto" and instead they
ended up
being bubblegum on Michael Harrington's shoes."
This is just plain silliness. I can speak here on a first person basis, since
I was one of the leaders of NAM who supported the merger, and was one of the
two NAM based full time political directors of DSA (DSOC also had two), in
the period after the merger. I can also speak pretty authoritatively on
behalf of the other ex-NAM leaders, with whom I was in close contact and many
of whom remain good friends to this day. We were never closed out of the
national leadership of DSA; indeed, we polled the most votes in the first
election of the merged organization for the national leadership, and were the
dominant political force. What actually happened was a political process in
which, over a period of time, the ex-NAM leaders came to similar conclusions
concerning the usefulness and efficacy of a democratic socialist organization
which saw itself as a direct player in American politics during the 1980s,
and moved on, one by one, to other political pursuits. Today, most of us are
inactive members of DSA, and do our political work in other, mass arenas. The
suggestion that we were somehow 'turfed' out is just off base.

I do think about the experiences of NAM and the merger into DSA on occasion,
and I find in them some interesting lessons about the form the next American
left might take. But a meaningful discussion of those experiences has to
start from some basic and correct information.

Leo
 


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------