Beyond downturns and upturns

I'VE BEEN following the debates in SocialistWorker.org with great interest, and I think it is fantastic to see the website become such a productive venue for exchanging and refining ideas among radicals. I have learned a lot--whether I agree, disagree, or both--and look forward to many more such debates in the future.

So it has been strange to see several different pieces by a few former members of the International Socialist Organization (ISO), published in various places (mostly blogs and Counterpunch), which criticize the group for various shortcomings.

While the specifics of the criticisms sometimes differ and even contradict each other, there seems to be a common general thread: 1) the working class is still in a period of defeat (making it nigh-impossible for the ISO to grow); 2) the ISO doesn't recognize this; 3) if it did recognize this, it would grow more.

One could simply stop there, point out the obvious flaws in this logic, have a good laugh, and move on. Instead, Ragina Johnson and Todd Chretien ("When hindsight isn't 20/20"), Alan Maass and Eric Ruder ("The challenges facing socialists today"), and Brit Schulte and Jason Netek ("Frustrations turned inward") all took the high road and responded comradely and with great humility, insight and detail to many of the specific points.

Having said that, I think there's more to say about the "big picture." The questions of what kind of period we are in and what kind of outlook we should have are interesting and important ones. Now, I can't promise this letter will be as illuminating as the previous responses. But it does have the benefit of having been written by an ex-member. (I'm not quite sure why, but somehow this is supposed to give me some kind of credibility.)

SO ARE we still in a "downturn" or "period of defeat"?

The idea of "upturns" and "downturns" has been a useful concept to describe certain periods of accelerating victories, like the wave of general strikes and occupations in 1934-37 and the wildcat strikes in 1968-70, and defeats, like the Palmer Raids and "Red Scare" after the First World War or after Reagan broke the PATCO air traffic controllers strike in 1981.

The first thing to note about these periods is that we should see them as temporary and generally short-lived. If we don't, then everything becomes either upturn or downturn, and since upturns are necessarily short (unless there's a revolutionary breakthrough), we are left with viewing the vast majority of history as long periods of defeat which somehow, suddenly, magically, transform into victories. Likewise, the only time we could speak about upturns is when we are in the midst of one, lest we be accused of being too optimistic or "overestimating consciousness"--which raises the question of why bother having an analysis at all.

Using the terms this way empties them of their analytical power, of their ability to illuminate how one can become the other.

Furthermore, these periods don't all progress in a straight line (i.e., building from small struggles to bigger ones to general strikes to revolutions). For example, the upturn in the mid-1930s started with three general strikes, followed by a lull in 1935 when the civil war between the AFL and CIO broke out, before the Flint sit-down strike got things going again in late '36. Anyone who sees the class struggle as a conveyor belt that tilts either "up" or "down" (presupposing some absolute level of "flat") is going to be mystified by how history actually develops.

And if this "churn" is true of periods of genuine upturns and downturns, then how much more true is it going to be of "normal" times? (Not that there's anything "normal" about a world in which you can get life in prison for stealing $50, but stealing $50 billion gets you appointed to the Federal Reserve.)

And yet many of the people criticizing the ISO insist we are still in a post-PATCO period of defeat, and that the ISO has "overestimated working-class consciousness." This is an astonishing claim, not least because a significant portion of the working class wasn't even born in 1981.

But to describe the current period as one of continued downturn because we are not yet in an upturn is not merely useless (and pessimistic and willfully ignorant of the halting progress we have made), but it ascribes semi-divine status to Ronald Reagan (of all people--this is the flipside of the right's deification of him) and by extension to individual acts of the ruling class, while downplaying and denying the significance of anything accomplished, however partial and contradictory, by ordinary people.

THERE'S ANOTHER aspect of the upturn/downturn concept that I think the ISO's critics don't understand, and that is the role of all of this on workers' consciousness--not some unmeasurable, arbitrary benchmark of "consciousness" against which real human beings never seem to measure up, but in the actual ideas and conclusions that actual people actually draw from events and experiences.

In this sense, what made the PATCO defeat so significant was not just that the bosses went on the offensive; this is to be expected. And it wasn't just that the union leadership and the Democrats turned their backs on the strikers; this is also par for the course. What I think was crucial was that large numbers of working people themselves drew pessimistic conclusions: that strikes couldn't win, that unions were unnecessary or outdated, and everything else about the left (and their own power as workers) that went along with it.

Call me crazy, but I don't think that's the case any longer. In my experience, masses of people are not drawing right-wing, pessimistic conclusions from the victories and excesses of the rich. In fact, quite the opposite. Bailouts for banks while working people get evicted? Outrage. Stock market records while unemployment remains high? Bitterness. Attacks on teachers by billionaires? Anger. Racist child-killers going free? Horror and sympathy for Trayvon and his family. Sexist legislation? Disgust and resistance and mockery of the misogynists. Same-sex marriage, Wisconsin, Occupy, Egypt? Love and joy and hope and solidarity.

There's that moment in the Rocky movies (doesn't matter which one...all of them, I think) where Rocky starts taunting his seemingly invincible opponent, "[WHAM] Come on. You ain't so bad! [WHAM]" He still gets pummeled for a while, but the hits no longer have the power to take him down.

That's us right now.

What happened when the cops attacked Occupy Wall Street? "[WHAM]" The movement went national. "You ain't so bad!"

Even as Occupy camps were evicted and the Wisconsin occupation detoured into the recall dead-end, the sense I got from people was not "Direct action doesn't work" or "Let's elect Romney," but "How can we make that bigger and more effective?" and "When can we do that again?"

Of course, this is not a smooth or linear process. The antiwar movement was steamrolled by the American military juggernaut and lulled to sleep by the Democrats. And the racist "war on terror" continues to be accepted as legitimate by large swaths of people.

But the point is that each of these things must be analyzed--on its own and in context--and not just ignored because it didn't break Reagan's magic neoliberal spell.

AS A result, it seems to me like the ISO has been correct to engage with the struggles (mini-upturns and mini-downturns) that have occurred. It may not have always and precisely predicted the exact moments or magnitudes of shifting. But so what? Who in the world expects that?

Perspectives documents, even really goods ones, are not prophecies. Nor are they good luck charms that fend off the evil spirits of neoliberalism. They will not make building a socialist organization in a country where Paul Ryan is considered a deep thinker easy. And they do not absolve activists from thinking things through where they are in places as different as Atlanta and Seattle, Boston or Austin (nevermind different countries like the U.S., Britain, Greece, or Egypt).

So it strikes me as odd that some of those who insist that the ISO's perspectives have been wrong would assert that they "don't have any answers." Honestly, that's not good enough for someone who wants to change the world, and it misunderstands what it means to be a member of a group like the ISO.

My understanding has always been that if a member disagrees with a position articulated by other members, including individual leading members or the leadership as a whole, the solution is not to complain and say they should do a better job. A revolutionary should go ahead and do it him- or herself.

Make the argument--and not as an academic point of debate that doesn't mean anything other than the right to brag about being "right" or "wrong," but as a real attempt to really understand things that have real consequences. Spell out how you disagree. (And try not to be a jerk about it.) Debate and refine your positions. Test them in practice. Teach and learn.

But that's not what many of these former members are doing. Instead, they just denounce the ISO, and in particular, its elected leadership, for being wrong (they say). As a result, while these folks may seem to want the radical aura of being "dissident," "contradictory" or "irreverent," what they are actually calling for is a leadership that is infallible.

The flipside of this is Shaun J.'s insistence that the ISO "explicitly admit and carefully explain" any mistakes or changes. Eric and Alan already detailed how the ISO has made adjustments and shifts when circumstances change, but that's apparently not good enough for Shaun. His is a call for a leadership that can never be right because nothing is ever precise enough. (I am reminded of a short story by Borges about a map of an empire that was precisely as big as the empire itself, and thus useless.)

This is not "Marxism," but the pedantry of academics. It is the data-mongering of management consultants and technocrats who want "results" and "accountability" (for everyone but themselves). And as someone who has worked in both corporate consulting and education, I know first-hand that their pretensions to quantify incredibly complex socio-economic phenomena are so much smoke and mirrors; they will always conclude that pensions need to be cut and teachers need to work harder.

The world is a very complex place. And no single part tells the whole story. No graphs or charts point the way to a future of equality and justice without people to make sense of them.

In that project, we all make mistakes. I certainly have made more than my share of boneheaded moves and stupid arguments. Honestly, none of this is easy. (If it was, it already would have been done.) And, like the car wreck survivor struggling to walk again, we sometimes push too hard and get reinjured. Sometimes we might need a breather to gather our strength. There's no shame in that. In fact, it's normal. But, ultimately, the only thing to do is to keep at it.

That is why, despite disagreeing with those former members and critics of the ISO, I wish them the best. I hope they remain active and involved. I hope, if they do have insights and experiences from which the rest of us can benefit, that they share them. Likewise, I hope they don't cut themselves off from insights and experiences that members of the ISO can share.

SO WHERE are we today? And can the ISO play a role in building the left?

To answer, permit me a completely scientifically invalid anecdote.

Back in the late 1990s, the anti-death-penalty umbrella group here (Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty) was tiny, demoralized and dominated by religious liberals who were terrified of appearing too "radical" (trust me, there was no danger of that). Their definition of activism started with writing letters to senators and ended with lobbying them.

When members of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty (including some ISO members) proposed things like picketing the Board of Pardons and Paroles or even having a public meeting, it was like we were speaking in tongues. (Honestly, given how religious most of them were, speaking in tongues probably would have been more comprehensible than talk of protests and marches.) And when asked about possibly innocent people on death row, they were adamant that everyone on Georgia's death row was guilty.

Through a lot of hard work and patience, though, we eventually made contact with a brilliant, fearless woman named Martina Correia who was fighting for the life of her brother, Troy Davis, an innocent man on Georgia's death row. In this way, Correia got in touch with the national CEDP and other national activist networks and got her brother's story out. Within a few years, there were demonstrations all over the country, and even internationally, demanding that Georgia free Troy Davis.

On the day of Troy's execution two years ago, thousands of people marched in Atlanta and other cities for Davis's life, his execution was headline news the world over, and millions of people saw how brutal and racist the American justice system could be.

On that march, I saw several people from the old Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, marching, chanting and holding picket signs. And they were loud. And angry.

If that's not an example of radicalization, I don't know what the word means. I'm sure many of them still believe in the almighty power of lobbying and writing senators. But the shift, the change, is what's important.

They may not be ready to join a group like the ISO yet. Some may never be. But it's obvious that at least we are finally speaking the same language.

Now, to go back to the original question, was all this a victory or a defeat? Troy is dead. And Martina lost her battle with cancer a few weeks later. In that sense, it's certainly not a victory. But to call it a defeat would be to insult the memory of a courageous brother and sister and the effect they had on millions. And whatever it was, it was right to be a part of that fight.

One final point.

A week later, after the tears dried, I was reading about the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests, and one protester was asked why she was there. She said that she and some friends had just recently gotten involved in activism because of the Troy Davis case, and felt Occupy Wall Street was the natural extension of that struggle.

It was like a moment of revelation: a direct line from those seemingly endless and unproductive (and often frustrating) anti-death penalty meetings in Atlanta to these young activists I had never met challenging the nerve center of global capitalism a decade later.

Individual activists, people both in and influenced by the ISO, made a difference in something that echoed around the world. What we do matters, even if the results are not immediately obvious or under our control.

The ISO may not be a large organization. But, like the activists and writers and organizers who make it up, what it does matters. It has made a difference in countless small, local struggles--and in many larger ones. It has been--and, I believe, will continue to be--a positive force in the process of rebuilding both the broad left, as well as an explicitly socialist wing of it.

And throughout my years of working with members of it, either as a member myself or as a collaborator, I can honestly say I have never worked with a more thoughtful, conscientious, knowledgeable, inspiring, and tireless group of people (even, and sometimes especially, when I disagreed with others in it), all dedicated to the emancipation of humanity from an inhumane system.

I look forward to rejoining and working with the ISO and a growing left on that project.

In solidarity,
Dave C., Atlanta