I don’t really see it as a rigid dichotomy between reform or revolution. To me, Bernie Sanders and electoral politics in general are just means to an end. Like many members of DSA, I’m fairly realistic about the limitations of what Sanders or any elected official can achieve in office.
At the same time, I’m also realistic about the limitations inherent in the forms of political organizing anarchists tend to engage in. I think neither in isolation will actually lead to the defeat of capitalism in the long term.
That’s not to denigrate the work that Black Rose and other anarchists do; it’s just a statement of fact. The reason why we’re even discussing how the ruling class will respond to a left threat—capital strikes, coups, etc.—is that such a threat is now becoming for the first time plausible.
Like it or not, electoralism is the primary mode by which most Americans understand and engage in politics. If you go to any anarchist website, there is invariably some definition of “direct action,” which displays a fundamental recognition of the fact that the concept is sadly alien to a lot of people. No one has to have elections or voting explained to them.
If you look back on the Spanish Revolution, the most successful anarchist revolution by far, you’ll note that it had one key subjective factor that is glaringly absent in 21st century America—a strong tradition of radical anarchist politics going back to the 1800s—and it still failed.
Even if we recognize that revolution is necessary to expropriate capital—and I’m not saying it isn’t—what is the pragmatic path to that? In order for revolution to be truly a democratic act (vs. a minority imposing its will on the masses) you would need mass participation on a scale I honestly can’t imagine anarchists ever pulling off. Sorry.
Anarchist organizations are tightly knit and inaccessible to most people. I don’t even know how I would go about joining Black Rose Federation. How many members do you have over 40? 50? 60? How many live in rural areas?
DSA is currently experiencing explosive growth—we’re up to 80,000—and that’s largely due to the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. Talk of coups and what not is actually pretty silly to me because I’m sure everyone in the DSA who is not utterly naive understands he’s going to be effectively neutralized by conservatives in the GOP and the moderate/right wing of the party long before a military coup even becomes necessary.
From a Gramscian perspective, a Sanders presidency would have value in terms of challenging the hegemony of capitalist ideology and validating socialist ideas in the same way Trump validated the far-right’s ideas though he was ineffective at actually implementing many of the main planks of the fascist program, namely the wall and restoring white preference in immigration.
In the wake of the Cold War, socialism needs to be rehabilitated in some form. Sanders is doing that. Before you can even make a case that revolution is necessary to end the inequality of capitalism, you have to make the case that inequality itself is wrong and we still have a long way to go there. Inequality is low on the list of priorities. People respond more to things that are close to their personal interests, like health care and education.
Electoral politics present a chance to bring in a larger group of people on these grounds, to educate them and radicalize them, and to get them plugged into the day-to-day work of radical politics, whether that’s canvassing for the tenant’s organizations or raising money to pay the bonds for undocumented immigrants snatched by ICE.
If you disagree with the DSA’s strategy fine, but that shouldn’t preclude you from working with us on areas of mutual interest. Despite our support for Sanders, we’re still committed wholeheartedly to building power from the ground up.
