3650. Can the Left Upset Victory in France Turn the Tide?

By Marc Steiner, The Real News Network, July 9, 2024

Supporters of the Popular Front Coalition celebrate in Paris

The twists and turns of France’s recent election have ended with a surprise majority for the New Popular Front, a hastily cobbled together left coalition running the gamut from the Communists to the Greens. The NFP’s unexpected triumph turned the early success of the far-right National Rally in the first round of the election on its head. But the right in France is far from defeated, and whether the NFP can hold its ground, or expand its influence from here, remains to be seen. Axel Persson, general secretary of the CGT Railway Workers Union in Trappes, joins The Marc Steiner Show for a postmortem of the election, the challenges that remain ahead for the French left, and what lessons can be learned by observers from around the world.

TRANSCRIPT

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Marc Steiner:

Welcome to the Marc Steiner Show here on the Real News. It’s great to have you all with us again. As we all know, France just went to the polls, but first let me tell you, I’m home a bit under the weather. We have to get this program out given what just happened in France. Bear with me if the sound quality is not as great as we always have it. But it’s an important conversation and nobody thought this was going to happen. Everybody thought Le Pen and the right would win this election.

The right would take over France, but the people had a different idea. And this election in France, the left coalition made up the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, the Ecologists or the Greens, created something like a 1930s Popular Front that they did then to combat Nazism and the right, demand worker rights in during the depression. Now a new Popular Front has taken over and taken up that mantle and all the disparate groups in the left in France and together to stop the right wing from taking power. And this left wing coalition is there. We’ll see what happens in the future. And we are joined now by Axel Persson who is a train driver in France, General Secretary of the CGT Railroad Workers Union in Montreuil, in a suburb of Paris. And Axel, excuse me, good to have you with us.

Axel Persson:

Thank you. Happy to be with you.

Marc Steiner:

And you’re joining us from Sweden.

Axel Persson:

I’m actually joining from Sweden because I’m actually on holidays for 11 coming days. I left this morning for Sweden.

Marc Steiner:

Welcome. Glad you could join us.

Axel Persson:

Thank you.

Marc Steiner:

This really was in many ways, absolutely unprecedented. People did not think this was going to happen. Talk a bit about what you think happened and how and why the left went beyond what people expected to happen.

Axel Persson:

The very name Popular Front that was used to define this broad alliance between the Social Democrats, the Communist Party, the Green Party, and also one of the biggest parties on the left nowadays that is called [foreign language 00:02:03] in French, which would translate into the Unbounded Rebellious France, came together of course using this very politically charged name of Popular Front because it refers to a very specific period in French history in the 1930s and of course different situations but similar dynamics where the far right was on the rise and also on the verge of taking power. They decided to come together, unite in order to prevent them from seizing state power at least through the means of election. It was a direct reference to that period of history in order to mark as heavily as possible in the collective conscience that this is what was at stake here right now.

 And of course it worked to some extent. And I must add also that this is not only a coalition of political parties, it’s also a coalition that includes, for example, trade unions such as mine, the CGT, the General Confederation Labor, which is the oldest trade union in France. And also groups like anti-fascist groups which joined the front of feminist organizations, anti-racist organizations and different movements such as, for example, Jewish, anti-Zionist organizations that joined the Popular Front in order to unite on a platform that of course made many compromises on various issues. But that defined a minimal frame into which one could form an agreement in order to prevent and go to the polls and prevent the far right from seizing power, which worked, at least for now. And I’m saying this at least for now, because even though the Popular Front managed to prevent the far right from gaining the most seats in parliament and the Popular Front is the coalition that has the most seats in parliament, it neither has its own majority.

And it cannot hide the fact that despite this, the far right has grown in French society and this election, even though they didn’t gain as much seats as they hoped for, does confirm that they’re on an upwards trend and that their ideas have been deeply rooted in French society, which means that unless we manage to switch the tide and turn it backwards, it’s just a matter of time because they managed to seize power. This is an alert, it worked this time. The Popular Front tactic worked this time, but it also gives us high responsibilities in order to seize this opportunity where we managed to prevent them from seizing power to transform it into hope. Because in the end, just preventing them from seizing power is not a political program in itself that could satisfy the large swath of the working class and the population in general.

What we need to do now is take the offensive back, gain the ground we’ve lost, gain back the ground we’ve lost and go on the offensive. And us as a trade union, what we are saying now is that the only issue at hand for us is to organize massively and use the weapons of our collective class, which are strikes, insurrections, demonstrations, because those are the only way into which we’ll be able to transform the society, not institutional politics, even though we do not underestimate importance of elections. But in the end, that is not what is going to change radically the lives of the people who are demanding this desperate change in order to live in a better world to put things simply. That is our task at hand, which is actually the most difficult part. It’s not the elections that were the most difficult, it’s actually what’s coming now.

Marc Steiner:

Let me just say, Axel you said so much here. Let me see if I can get some of it out and I can see why you’re one of the leaders of the movement. But let’s first of all talk about, one of the things you said was how the right has grown and how they have a powerful base in France, talk about for all of our people listening about the political struggle in France and why the right is so strong and why the surge as it has in the United States, as it has in India, as it has in lots of places, but what’s the French story? Why is there such a surge on the right?

Axel Persson:

There’s many explanations of course. The first one being of course, that the far right is being financed and fueled by very powerful forces in French society. For example, there is a very, very famous, one of the most powerful billionaires in French society who is called Vincent Bollore, who is a CEO of an industrial empire who has for the past decade now methodically bought up massive amount of medias within the written press, television, radios, and is now actually pushing and lobbying for the privatization of the public media in order to be able to privatize them and has managed to push through this campaign and a massive amount of media campaigning, pushing basically far right theories, shifting the blame that working people can lay on the issues that facing, such as housing crisis, low wages, layoffs in factories, even in security. Everything, everything, everything, literally, there’s no exception to it, is being linked to issues such as immigration, ethnicity or sometimes even religion.

And that is a massively coordinated campaign that is being fund and financed by very powerful forces in French society who have a right wing agenda. But the fact also that it has succeeded because that is not the only factor is also because of the weakness actually of the organized left, even though it’s stronger than in other countries, the fact that for example, the Social Democratic Party, even the Communist Party have been in power most notably in the eighties and nineties and even actually in 2012, have repeatedly failed and disappointed vast sections of the working class when they were in power implementing policies that were against the working classes or even sometimes pushing racist policies.

I’m thinking particularly about the Social Democratic Party, which has led to a massive disillusion in politics, which has given way to this far right that much like in the US actually where we have this quite absurd situation where billionaires, because it’s literally billionaires like Trump for example, as you have in the US who are billionaires from the system, the establishment, and who managed to portray themselves as the anti-system candidates, which is quite absurd when you see where they’re coming from and how they’re being funded.

But that is basically the dynamics into which… And they’re managing to tap into the sentiment a large portion of the society here through that. And one of the things also another pillar by that is that we used to have in France the biggest, the strongest communist party in the entire industrial world, which meant that it was not only strong electorally, it was also strong in society, in the grassroots, it controlled large neighborhoods, it controlled cities. And within these cities they had organized a complete counter society by controlling unions, controlling sport clubs, controlling all these associations that would help people with housing issues, even homework, everyday problems.

And as this Communist Party participated in governments that disappointed large section of the class, this party progressively started its downhill phase and not disappeared, but got very, very weakened. And this whole counter society that managed to basically fight this narrative in the working class neighborhoods has been weakened a lot, which has given a leeway to the far right that has managed to tap in into those communities that used to be organized by the communist movement and are now having a much easier time to basically dive into the collective psyche of the workers than that we had before.

Marc Steiner:

Just from your responses to the questions I ask, I can see we could spend days here, we don’t have days to spend, but I would like to probe that a little bit more deeply because one of the things I thought about in watching what was happening in France in this election is that it is emblematic of the struggle across the globe.

Axel Persson:

Yes.

Marc Steiner:

I’d like to hear your analysis as someone who’s been a union activist, who’s been fighting in the political struggles in France, why you think, what your analysis is about why the left seems to have come apart, has lost power in its way? Even though in France itself, you built this coalition that won the election, or at least you had more votes than anybody else in the election, that’s almost unprecedented since the thirties to be able to put that broad liberal left and left coalition together to stop the right. Tell me, I just want to hear your answer why you think the left is having so much problem and B, what do you think that holds for the future?

Axel Persson:

What it holds for the future is that of course what made basically the left in this particular situation, and not only the political left, even the trade unions and all these associations that took part, that are part of the Popular Front is the weight of history and the conscious and this very strong historical conscience of what happened last time when fascists were in power. That is something that is shared amongst the broad left, despite all our differences because the lessons from the thirties basically were drawn that, we might have a very, very vocal and very severe disagreements, very passionate disagreements amongst us on issues that are very important, such as, for example, Palestine is an issue that are currently going now, the war in Ukraine, even the pension reform on matters of internal French politics on all issues. But in the end of the day, we know that the fascists, they don’t care about our difference.

They will basically smash all of us. They will put us in prison, they will attack us all. They didn’t actually, the groups, they don’t discriminate in between us, they attack us all widely. We don’t have a chance, we don’t have any other choice but to unite in order to fight for survival. And that is something that is very ingrained in the political conscious. But the reason why also we are in a weaker position that when we were before though, is the fact that this collective counter society, this collective political ideal, that another society is actually within reach, that we can build it, that we can transform through collective radical struggles, has been abandoned by many of the political leadership of the historical left who has traded it for institutional politics, which has left many disappointed. And that is not only the case in France, it has been the case in the UK, it has been the case in the US, it has been the case in many, many parts of the world.

And this whole ideal that we can change the world to make it a better place by overthrowing the current system is something that is not being taught or nothing being vaculated in our structures and our unions and our political parties anymore. It is nowadays being done again, which is giving more hope. But it is something that is vital because the far right prospers on the despair of the working people. And that is something we need to do is be able to give a perspective and a hope that we can actually change this world.

Marc Steiner:

As a union man helping to run the union and as a political activist, how do you see that happening? Right now we don’t know what’s going to happen inside the parliament. It could be just an archic madness happening inside of the parliament in France because nobody has a majority.

Axel Persson:

Exactly.

Marc Steiner:

That’s A. Let me stop here, let me hit that. What do you think is going to happen? Then I’ll come back to the question about organizing for the future. What do you think is going to happen in the coming weeks and months given the absolute divide and split in France as shown by this election?

Axel Persson:

The first maneuvers the establishment is going to make is going to try to divide the Popular Front amongst its more reformist elements and it’s more radical elements. They’re going to try, for example, what they call the central block, which is basically the critical block formed around President Emmanuel Macron’s block basically are going to try, for example, to convince parts of the Popular Front, such as the Social Democrats or the Greens, to join their block in a coalition that would basically implement liberal policies with him. And in exchange of course for things like ministries or different positions within the state and machine, I’m not sure that’s going to work because the pressure is so high on the Popular Front within the working class and within the popular neighborhoods within our communities that anybody who leaves the Popular Front in exchange for this are going to get basically a very violent backlash from it.

And what we are saying as union members is that there is no hope to gain from institutional politics, what has always worked in France, but all across the countries in the world, in general world, there’s a working class is only, and there’s only one thing that works, it’s when we go on strike, it’s when we go on general strikes. It’s when we organize a corrective upheaval of our forces. And we’ve proved it in the past, we proved it. And I’m not talking about the past that happened like 150 years ago. I’m talking about something that happened a few months ago. For example, in very concrete example in my industry last year we won a general strike with all other workers to defend our pension issues. We refused to go back to work. We continued it even this year and we won an agreement just a few months ago that basically secured my right solving, my right, to retire at 53 years old at full pension.

And that is possible, that was made possible, not because we voted right, it wasn’t made possible because we fought, organized, and made them cave in and made them bite the dust and not the other way around. What we are saying is that as workers, the only issue forward is not to trust in what’s going to happen in the institution, it’s what we’re going to do as workers organizing the workplace and using the most important weapon we have is to strike because that’s how you paralyze the economy. That’s how you force them to cave into your demands.

And it also demonstrates that without our labor, they can’t do anything. They can’t produce the profits they’re living on, they can produce their dividends and it just comes to prove that they’re the one needing us. We’re not the one needing them. And this is a very, very important political point that we need to make and that we’re basically hammering through now and even within the institutions, in order to force institutions to bow down to our demands, we have to force them through our collective struggles. This is the only line we’re pulling in all the workplaces now is that prepare for a strike, prepare for the general struggles now.

Marc Steiner:

How do you see then that playing out in the coming months? You said this, you have this broad coalition and there are some differences obviously inside these liberal left coalition that was built to stop the neo-fascist from taking power. How do you see all that, given what you just described as well, how do you see that playing out? What do you think will happen over the next few months?

Axel Persson:

There’s two options. If there is no massive mobilization within the popular neighborhoods, within the workplaces, within the unions, it’ll end up, unfortunately, as it will always end up, when we don’t force them to go into our demands, it’ll end up in tactical alliances within different parties into the institutions, which will just lead to further disillusionment and disappointment. That is what will happen. But on the other hand, what may happen is that if this gives only a regained, a renewed sense of hope and people take to the streets, take to the fight basically in all the places in society, whether it be the universities, the workplaces, the neighborhoods, everywhere basically, even the high schools, if people start mobilizing mastery through demonstrations, occupations, and strikes, which we have proved we can do in a very recent future, then things might change for real.

And this is also why the name Popular Front is important because of course in the history in France, the name Popular Front refers to the government that was formed in 1936 and is associated in French social and political history with major social advances such as paid holidays, collective agreements, reduced working hours, the eight-hour working day, et cetera, et cetera.

And also trade union rights. But what one must not forget is that most of the things that were gained in 1936 were not even on the political platform on which the Popular Front parties on 1936 went to elections with. What happened was that there was a general strike in June 1936 that lasted for months in which major, all the factories in France occupied by the workers. And after one month’s long strike, the employers and the government were then forced to sign an agreement which gave all these advances and social rights, which we benefit still from today. And that’s what we are saying, we are saying, “Yeah, we revived the Popular Front, we revived the coalition, basically the electric coalition, what we need to arrive now is what made it really interesting.” It was a general strike that followed, and this may sound a bit very simplistic, but there is no other way actually, people are saying something else are just lying.

Marc Steiner:

When you have a country like France and like the United States that are so deeply divided among the people, we have an election coming up and people on the left they go, “We despise Biden, we can’t vote for Biden.” But then again, you don’t want the neo-fascist to take over the United States. That would be a disaster for our country and the planet. In France, how do you maintain this coalition and really seize power so it can’t be pushed out?

Axel Persson:

The fact is that we know that for the next year, the president does not dispose of the faculty to dissolve the parliament. We know that for the coming year, basically the parliament is going to stay at least for a year. But the thing is that-

Marc Steiner:

What does that mean? We just had this election in France and you’re saying the president has the power to not allow it to take power, to take their seats, to change. [inaudible 00:19:18].

Axel Persson:

It’s a very peculiar power the French president has is that the French president has the faculty to what they call to dissolve the parliament if for example, is what he just did, for whatever reason, he can decide that the parliament is no longer session and new elections are being held. But he can only do that once a year maximum. He can’t do it like every day either. And what I’m saying also is that in the absence of a majority in parliament, because neither block has a majority, the constitution wasn’t really tailored for such a situation. We don’t know what’s going to happen because it wasn’t tailored for that. And we’re going to find out in the coming weeks what strategy Macron and the other parties are going to have. I can’t really speculate on that because this is quite new basically in French political society.

But what we do know though is that they’re quite intent on not letting the program of the Popular Front being implemented. They’ve been very clear on that. What we’re going to have to do, and I’m always coming back to these fundamentals, is that this coalition was good in the sense that it prevented the far right from getting a majority of the seats in parliament. But it doesn’t mean we have ceased power as workers. When I’m going back to work after my 11 days of holidays, my bosses will still be there. They will still be holding the power over me in the workplaces. The banks will still be owned by the same owners who will still dispose of the same power. And what we are saying to the people and the workers listening to us is that is where the real power lies and that is the power we need to seize.

It’s that power we need to target. I’m not trying to avoid your question. I’m just saying that what we are saying as union now is that the only way to direct our strength and level our collective strength at those who hold the real power is to paralyze and shut down the economy. And I will say this because you mentioned a very divided country. It’s true that it is divided. But what we have shown in the past, for example, last year when we were on the pension strike Macron, and this is part of the reason he actually lost these elections, tried to implement pension reform that will raise the general retirement age to 64 for the general public. And when we went on strike and the society was massively paralyzed by our strikes, and this was a strike that was very massively supported by the working class and the population in general, even their own polls showed that more than nine out of 10 working people supported our strikes, which means that even those who voted for the far right supported it, which means that there is common ground because we have common interests.

And it is only in these periods when we managed to mobilize on our interests, on our objectives, with our methods, that actually the far right disappears from the political scene for a while because that is the only time in society where we actually managed to unite. And actually everybody unites behind our banner, including people who vote for the far right and who are confused. This is why we’re saying this is a path forward. It’s not necessarily only electoral politics. It is to manage to build mobilizations that unite us around common interests. And that is our role as a trade union and that is what we can do. That is why our responsibility is so important because we’re the only force that can actually and manage to do that.

Marc Steiner:

That to me, before we have to go on, I know we have lots to do today. That to me is very fascinating because what you’re saying is you have to organize and keep pushing. You’ve got this huge number of people in the parliament, but the issue is organizing the people which also can bring in the right. And it makes me think about decades back when I was probably closer to your age and organizing, we organized a right wing racist neighborhood in coalition with a black neighborhood to fight for their rights both on the docks and also in terms of housing rights.

Axel Persson:

Exactly.

Marc Steiner:

And you’re saying that that’s the same approach seems you’re taking in your strategic thinking about how you build on this and not allow the right to come back.

Axel Persson:

Exactly. That’s the key to it. Because at the end of the day, even if it’s very difficult to admit because what some of these people are saying when we’re talking about society is very difficult to hear sometimes when we’re discussing it’s very racist series, it’s extremely violent. But at the end of the day, even if they ignore it, and it’s not about being paternalistic or anything or condescending, even if they ignore it, they as workers have the same interest as the other workers, regardless of their skin color, regardless of their gender, regardless of their religion, even if they ignore it, they do have the same interest. And they actually do realize it only in periods where we as unions managed to mobilize the entire French society around our common objectives. And we proven that this is not like an abstract theory. When we go on massive strikes for pension issues, they support us.

And that is actually the moment where they actually join people they theoretically hate when they vote. That’s the only time of the year basically where they actually join and fight with them. And that is in these moments where we can build beyond abstract discussions, we can build concrete common mobilizations and make their consciousness evolve into something more progressive basically. And for example, right now many workers are facing issues such as insufficient wages to meet their needs, their daily needs or housing problems. Some of them will say for example, that the housing problems are due to immigrants taking better housing or that lower wages are due to immigrants doing it for lower wages and whatever. But at the end of the day, when we manage to organize mobilizations for decent housing in the neighborhoods or high wages through strikes, that is a moment where we actually manage to unite them where they can meet or what can discuss.

And that is where I’ve seen personally political consciousness evolve. And that is why we’re insisting and joins what you said yourself about when you organize these type of neighborhoods back in the days, it’s the only moment where actually political consciousness involved when they can actually become allies. But it’s actually the most important task we have at hand is to manage how to unite our class around its class objectives and make the clash consciousness rise again. Basically that is the task at hand because that is what is lacking the most in order to rebuild not only the Popular Front, but rebuild basically a capable organization that are capable to overthrow the society because divided we fall.

Marc Steiner:

That’s wonderful. I almost want to end it there, but one really last quick question, let you go back to the family is that I’m curious in all the work you’ve done as a union leader, organizer, leading strikes, organizing people and helping to build this Popular Front that really stopped the right wing onslaught for now, for this moment, where do you think it goes from here? Where do you think the next couple of months, which will be very critical, will take it?

Axel Persson:

It’s going to be very critical because if we fail, basically what happened now needs to be translated into tangible results for working people in the coming period. I’m not saying the coming day or the coming weeks, but it needs to be translated into tangible results for the working class. Because if it doesn’t, this will just mean that the far right will be able to, even if there was a bit delayed, but will only delay the ascension to power because they will be able to tap into that sentiment that, “All of these politicians, all of these forces are rotten and in the end of the day they betray us and they don’t provide and they don’t live up to the promises they made.”

And basically people will resort to forces that actually promise to crush us because that is what they’re doing. The far right, the promise is not only to crushes, of course the most known part is crushing immigrants or just discriminating against blacks or LGBTs, you name it, they do it, but they also, and it’s something they less publicize, is also about how they promise to cross the trade unions in France, which is one of the pillars of fascism.

And what we need to go from here is to make sure that our mobilization, that we manage to force the Popular Front to stay true to its program and also that our mobilization manages to prevent all the other parties from stopping the program from being implemented. That’s why I’m always coming back to the basics. Back to the basics. The only social force that can save the working class is the working class itself. There is no supreme savior, it is only us, through our mobilization that can force this to happen because we are the one who make all the cogs of societies, all the wheels of societies turn. Without us, nothing works. There will be no train, there will be no fuel, there will be no electricity if we decide to withdraw labor. We hold the power, we just need to gain the conscious that we have it and that we need to use this in order to crush them, in order to prevent them from crushing us.

This will need a broad alliance from anti-racist organizations, trade unions, feminist organization, anti-colonialist organizations such as those that are involved in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine because we all share the same and common enemy, which is the capitalist state. And if we managed to unite in all our fights in order to deal a common blow at our common enemies, that is how we will rebuild the class consciousness and build a potent force that is capable of bringing down the society and not only bringing it down, but heralding a new hope for millions of people who are just craving for something to hope for.

Marc Steiner:

Axel Persson, I want to thank you so much for taking the time today on your break on holiday in Sweden. This has been a really interesting conversation. I look forward to having more conversations as we cover what’s happening in France because I think it’s emblematic and a story for all the people struggling for equitable society across us the globe need to hear, especially here in the United States where I live. Again, Axel, thank you for your work, thanks for your time and we’ll be staying in touch.

Axel Persson:

Thank you very much.

Marc Steiner:

Once again, thank you to Axel Persson for joining us today. And thanks to Cameron Granadino for running the program and our audio editor, Alina Nelah and the tireless Kayla Rivara for making it all work behind the scenes. And everyone here at The Real News for making this show possible. Please let me know what you thought about you heard today, what you’d like us to cover. Just write to me at mss@therealnews.com and I’ll get right back to you. Once again, thank you to the Axel Persson for joining us today, and we’ll be bringing you more about France and the struggle against the right and the fight for the future and bring more people, bring Axel back and other folks who are in the midst of that struggle that have a lot to say to us about the future. For the crew here at The Real News, I’m Marc Steiner. Stay involved and keep listening.

3018. An Interview With Julia Salazar

By Meagan Day, Jacobin, July 6, 2018

Julia Salazar. Photo: Gabriella Bass

On the heels of democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s unexpected victory against a ten-term incumbent in the recent Bronx and Queens Democratic primary, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi swore that socialism is not ascendant. It was kind of like a realtor informing you that the house isn’t haunted; the only reason to bring it up is because there have been sightings, the stairs creak at night.

This September, New York voters will have a chance to nominate another member of Democratic Socialists of America for political office. In Brooklyn, twenty-seven-year-old Julia Salazar is running for New York State Senate on a platform of single-payer health care, housing as a human right, protecting public schools from privatization, expanding collective bargaining rights, and ending mass incarceration and deportations.

Jacobin’s Meagan Day sat down with Salazar to talk about the failures of the Democratic Party establishment, the difference between socialists and progressives, and how democratic socialist candidates can stay accountable to the working class once they win office.

MD How did you become a socialist?

JS  My family immigrated to the US from Colombia when I was a baby, and my mom ended up raising my brother and me as a single mom, without a college degree and from a working-class background. My family wasn’t at all politically active, but my mom really had a chip on her shoulder and developed pretty conservative reactionary politics, so that was what I was exposed to growing up.

I started working when I was fourteen in a grocery store, and worked through high school in the service industry, and became increasingly aware of this cognitive dissonance I had between the political worldview that I was exposed to and my own self-interest. As someone who survived on social benefits, these things appeared increasingly at odds with each other.

I went to college at Columbia and I worked as a domestic worker, taking care of kids, cleaning people’s apartments. It was through a combination of the political education I received at college paired with my own development of class consciousness that eventually I came to identify as a socialist.

MD When did you get involved in activism?

JS My earliest experience was organizing my own building. I lived in a building in Harlem that was owned and run by an abusive and neglectful management company that wouldn’t adequately heat the building in the winter, failed to make urgent repairs that were necessary to make tenants’ apartments livable. I was twenty-one with no legal training, and I went on the city’s website and determined we could legally withhold our rent. So I talked to my roommates and my neighbors and we organized a rent strike.

We withheld our rent for three months. Finally, the management company took us to housing court. I showed up at housing court with a thick manila folder documenting conditions in the building. And we actually won concessions from the landlord. But of course, the management company did not invite me to renew my lease, and it was not a rent-stabilized unit, so they raised the rent and forced us out. To me, however, that experience exemplified and drove home the need for systemic change.

MD How do you define democratic socialism?

JS Broadly speaking, what it means to be a democratic socialist is to have a vision of a world where everyone is taken care of. We’re fighting for a society in which people are valued over profit, in which everyone has access to the things they need not just for basic survival but to thrive. In my campaign this translates to specific shorter-term policy positions including universal single-payer healthcare, expanding the rent stabilization system statewide and enacting universal rent control, ending cash bail and policies aimed at eliminating mass incarceration, and so on.

MD What distinguishes a democratic socialist from a progressive?

JS A democratic socialist recognizes the capitalist system as being inherently oppressive and is actively working to dismantle it and to empower the working class and the marginalized in our society. Socialists recognize that under capitalism, rich people are able — through private control of industry and of what should be public goods — to accumulate wealth by exploiting the working class and the underclass. Functionally, this perpetuates and exacerbates inequality.

A progressive will stop short at proposing reforms that help people but don’t necessarily transform the system. For example, a progressive might advocate for forcing landlords to do necessary repairs on buildings. But unless you advocate for universal rent control and frankly, eventually, the abolition of private property — though that’s not my campaign platform because it’s not very realistic — what you’re actually doing is just kicking the can down the road.

What it means to be a democratic socialist legislator is to push for changes that will have positive material effects in people’s lives, but which also bring us closer to a truly socialist economic system.

MD It sounds to me like you’re saying a progressive and a democratic socialist may overlap on some key policy proposals, but for a democratic socialist the goal is empowering the working class to win further fights against capitalism

JSYes, it’s like harm reduction — that’s how I would describe it.

MD What have been the primary failures of the Democratic Party establishment to date, and whose interests does the party serve at present?

JS Take the commentary we’ve seen in the last week since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beat Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary in her congressional district in New York. The dominant centrist liberal wing of the Democratic Party is completely out of touch with what the majority of registered Democrats — which is to say, working-class people — actually want, and the policies that actually resonate with them. I think what we’re seeing is that the constituents of the Democratic Party have a much bigger political imagination than the party establishment, whether at the federal level or in local machine politics.

So the main problem is a lack of political imagination, approaching every dispute from a position of compromise instead of from a position of readiness to fight for the working class and marginalized.

MD What do you think the prospects are for socialists in transforming the Democratic Party into a fighting force for working-class people? Can it be realigned, or is it merely a tool at present for building independent socialist politics?

JS I definitely think the latter. My feeling is that Democratic Party realignment is at best a laudable secondary goal, not a primary goal. Ultimately, the two-party system de facto disenfranchises people, and I can’t see the Democratic Party ultimately being a vessel for the democratic socialist revolution so it would be silly and shortsighted for democratic socialists to put a lot of effort and resources into that project.

MD But then on the other side, you have people saying socialists should only run outside the Democratic Party. What’s your answer to them?

JS They should tell that to the over 150,000 people in my district, who are living in fear every day of being displaced from their homes, and who are registered Democrats in a state with closed primaries. It’s unquestionably strategic here in New York — though not everywhere, I should add — to run as a Democrat if you want to seize power as a leftist. To mobilize people around socialist politics you have to engage Democratic voters, and you can’t do that in any meaningful way without running on the Democratic Party line in my district.

I recently supported DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) member Jabari Brisport, who ran as a Green Party candidate. His district is different from mine. I think it would be great if we could all avoid the Democratic Party line, and I think it’s still an important question for people running under different circumstances, but if I were to try to do that in this district, I highly doubt people would notice much less vote for a third-party candidate in the general election.

MD Is the goal of a socialist campaign primarily to win office and to legislate, or is it to build a movement and spread a message? If it’s the latter, how do electoral politics achieve that goal uniquely?

JS The goal is to build a movement. Otherwise, long-term, we are just reformists. And part of building that movement is demonstrating our power, demonstrating to other people we want to bring into the movement that the movement is growing and viable. We also need to send a message that in order to build this movement, we must radically defy the systemic efforts to alienate and isolate us from each other. Communicating that is one of the most important components of a campaign like mine.

Additionally, it’s important to actually successfully elect candidates who can enter the legislature and fight for policies that will actually transform the lives of working-class people. Election is a short-term goal, while the long-term goal is to build a movement, but the two are not mutually exclusive. The way people respond to these races — for example, in the case of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the way people have responded to a democratic socialist working-class Latina being elected in the Bronx to the federal government — can have a huge impact on the movement, on a national scale.

Democratic socialist electoral campaigns energize people to become involved in the socialist movement in the US. And while I think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is to the left of Bernie Sanders, and I am to the left of Bernie, there’s no doubt that his campaign generated an incredible amount of interest in socialism. When I canvass and mention democratic socialism, people primarily identify it with Bernie, because he popularized the concept through his electoral campaign.

MD What is the nature of your involvement in DSA, and how integral is DSA to your campaign?

JS DSA is absolutely integral to my campaign, particularly our field operations. I’ve been actively involved in NYC-DSA for almost two years. I’m on the organizing committee of our chapter’s Socialist Feminist Working Group, I used to manage the chapter-wide calendar and do a lot of administrative work, and I’ve been involved in multiple branch campaigns.

It was largely DSA members — one of whom is now my deputy campaign manager — who persuaded me to run. DSA’s national electoral strategy has informed our own campaign strategy, and DSA members have been volunteering for the campaign since we launched in April. So DSA has played a critical role in this campaign from its inception.

MD What do you make of the teacher strike wave? Is this a new dawn of labor militancy, and if so what accounts for it? And what’s the role of organized labor in fighting for a socialist world?

JS The strike is the most powerful tool that organized workers have against the boss. So to see workers striking in huge numbers, and in “right-to-work” states pre-Janus, is deeply inspiring. The socialist movement needs to be led by the working class, so when we see workers coming together in solidarity across the country to strike, it’s meaningful for the socialist movement. Furthermore, labor issues are related to all other issues facing the working class, like health care, and it was awesome to see that highlighted during the teacher strikes.

A true socialist movement is only going to become reality via the working class taking power and wielding the power we currently have. In New York State, public sector workers don’t have the right to strike because of the Taylor Law. Part of my platform, which I’ve spoken to people in the labor movement about throughout my campaign, is that we need to amend the Taylor Law to allow public sector workers to strike, especially now. In a post-Janus world, the strike is going to be the most powerful tool that workers have.

MD Returning to what we touched on previously, it strikes me that a good example of the distinction between a progressive candidate and a democratic socialist candidate might be that a progressive wouldn’t necessarily push super hard for amending the Taylor Law, because progressives to some extent believe that elected officials can take care of things — for instance, they can deliver change to workers by raising the minimum wage. A socialist doesn’t just want to pass legislation on behalf of the working class, but to clear obstacles to the working class’s militant self-organization.

JS That’s right. It really comes down to a core interest in empowering the working class. And that’s going to mean so much more than favorable reforms. There’s no question that we have to expand and comprehensively fund the social safety net, but if we do that without altering the more basic structures that disempower people and keep them in wage slavery, we’re never going to see long-term social change.

MD We know the party machine is strong in Albany. Meanwhile, capitalists everywhere exert power over the political process, directly through campaign funding operations and indirectly through the threat of capital strikes and disinvestment. So if you’re to win, what pressures and obstacles do you expect to face as an elected official in pursuing a democratic socialist program, and what are some strategies for meeting those challenges without compromising on socialist principles?

JS Working within the New York State legislature, I anticipate it will be difficult when there are different interests always trying to compromise a legislator’s integrity. We saw in New York a group of so-called progressives in the state senate recently who, as soon as they got into power, entered into a power-sharing agreement with the Republican Party. I’m not really interested, as you can imagine, in the fact that they betrayed the Democratic Party, but they betrayed the working class. They did that by not just agreeing to caucus with Republicans, but by giving up the power that had been invested in and entrusted to them by the electoral process. I don’t think they did it because they’re all secret Republicans, they did it because they negotiated a deal that would be advantageous for them, that would result in more funding for their districts in the budget process and ultimately better career prospects. This compromise would ultimately be in their own interests.

I think there’s always going to be private interests competing for a legislator’s favor and exerting various pressures, and the best way to remain accountable to the working class — that is, the kind of people who would elect a socialist in the first place — is to remain materially beholden to those people, for example by not taking corporate money. The importance of running a grassroots campaign isn’t just on principle, but in practice it means that if you were elected on a campaign funded entirely by the movement, then you’re more likely to stay accountable to the movement.

MD Here in California, Gayle McLaughlin ran a democratic socialist campaign for lieutenant governor. She didn’t win, but one of her ideas — in addition to being only financially beholden to working-class people — was to form a “shadow cabinet” for herself of dedicated movement leftists to help advise her on decisions and keep her in check. Elected officials have establishment voices in their ear all the time; her goal with this idea was to counterbalance that by explicitly lending an ear to people who would invariably provide a different analysis. What do you think about that?

JS That makes a lot of sense. A democratic socialist legislator always has to be driven, first and foremost, by class politics and a materialist analysis. To that end it’s important to surround yourself with people from the very start who are committed to that vision.

For example, in my campaign, we’re not hiring any consultants. It’s not that a consultant is bad on principle, but my socialist staff and I are deeply wary of bringing people in who are going to tell us to compromise our fundamental values as socialists. That same standard needs to be maintained in creating a staff as an elected. People don’t necessarily need to be dues-paying members of DSA, but you have to make sure that the people who are advising you are not entrenched in the system that’s oppressing us.

2956. Norman Thomas and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

By Louis Proyect, The Unrepentant Marxist, July 1, 2018

Norman Thomas

Bob Schieffer: Let me just start out by asking you, what is a socialist these days? I mean, I remember when a socialist was somebody who wanted to nationalize the railroads and things like that.

Bernie Sanders: When we talk about Democratic socialism, I think it is important to realize that there are countries around the world, like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, who have had social democratic governments on and off for many, many years. And we can learn a whole lot from some of those countries.

Face the Nation, May 10, 2015

---

Stephen Colbert: What does socialist mean to you?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: I believe that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live…So what that means is healthcare as a human right. It means that every child, no matter where you are born, should have access to a college or trade school education if they so choose it.”

The Late Show, June 29, 2018

---

There are specific Socialist plans which I have repeatedly discussed, for Constitutional revision, housing, genuine relief, aid to education, help for young and old and deliverance for the farmers. But our hope is not in these; It is in the production and fair division of the great national income which Socialism makes possible. The immediate demand of Socialists is for socialism, and in education and organization for socialism lies our only hope of giving vision, and purpose, and direction, to those who seek the new day. It is this positive fight for socialism in which lies security against war and fascism. We want a society in which engineers work for us and the satisfaction of our wants, not for the profit of absentee owners. And this is possible only when we own socially the great means of production and distribution.

Norman Thomas, Speech to Socialist Party campaign rally at Madison Square Garden, November 2^nd, 1936

---

As should be obvious, the victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the Democratic primary for Congress in a district previously represented by a hack named Joseph Crowley has given the DSA the kind of exposure that will increase its already meteoric growth. Googling her name and DSA returns 176,000 articles with a Daily Beast item toward the top of the list:

The 28-year-old member of Democratic Socialists of America—who shockingly won in New York’s 14th congressional district on a leftist platform of Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and a federal jobs guarantee—inspired a major boost in membership for the organization on Wednesday.

According to Lawrence Dreyfuss, a program associate for DSA, the organization saw a surge of 1,152 new memberships on Wednesday—about 35 times more sign-ups than on an average day.

The last major membership bump DSA experienced was in the month following President Trump’s election, during which time they had about six times more sign-ups than in the previous month.

DSA has undergone a renaissance of sorts in the Trump era, ballooning in size from some 5,000 members in November 2016 to 40,000 nationwide.

This attention reflects the emergence of the DSA as a pole of attraction for Democratic Party voters who are growing increasingly alienated from the business as usual politics of Joseph Crowley. A June 30 NY Times article titled “As Trump Consolidates Power, Democrats Confront a Rebellion in Their Ranks” refers to Ocasio-Cortez’s victory and adds:

On the activist left, there is a deep hunger to wean Democrats away from their ties to corporate America, one of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s clarion calls. There are also rising demands that leaders encourage, and even participate in, the sort of extreme measures of confrontation that took place on the floor of the Hart building and have been on display restaurants where Trump aides have been shouted down while dining. Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader who is facing a growing revolt in her own caucus, was sharply criticized on the left when she denounced such tactics.

Certainly, all of this momentum has been helped by the Sanders campaign, which is also largely responsible for the rapid growth of the DSA. In fact, you might even say that the DSA is the left-wing of the Democratic Party at this point, with the tacit goal of accomplishing the decades-long goal of turning it into something much more resembling European social democratic parties. Needless to say, this ambition is undermined by the economic realities of a bourgeoisie that has decided to turn the clock back to the Taft-McKinley era. For all of the opprobrium heaped on the Koch brothers (and rightly so), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) includes any number of corporations that hardly smack of Trump’s reactionary agenda such as Time-Warner, the corporate parent of HBO and CNN, two prime “progressive” outlets that would fawn on Ocasio-Cortez.

While it is commendable that DSA members have been very active in opposing Trump’s assaults on working people, immigrants and other vulnerable sectors of American society, I remain opposed to the idea that it is the socialist party that we so desperately need. In focusing single-mindedly on laudable reforms such as Medicare for all to the exclusion of any messages about the need to transform property relations in the USA, it creates a vacuum that will be by necessity filled by others. It may be possible that a left-wing splits from the DSA but I tend to doubt that eventuality since the group has developed almost exclusively as the instrument of the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

If necessity is the mother of invention, we can only hope that a true socialist party will emerge before very long. In preparing this article, I decided to do some research on Norman Thomas’s career, the long-time leader of the Socialist Party who succeeded Eugene V. Debs. While his six campaigns for President might suggest that he was stuck in an electoralist routine, there is much evidence that SP members made the right choice when they voted for him.

A June 11, 1918 NY Times article refers hysterically to a Bolsheviki mass meeting at Madison Square Garden that includes Norman Thomas among the featured speakers. You have to remember that Debs’s party was for the revolution and it was only the unwise decision by people like Charles Ruthenberg and Louis Fraina to launch an imitation Bolshevik Party in the USA that led to the SP’s demise.

For Thomas, the goal of socialist revolution was the same but his party was not hobbled by the sort of vanguardist delusions that would lead it to all sorts of sectarian infighting that nearly destroyed it in the 1920s as documented by Theodore Draper. With its ties to the Kremlin, however, the CP became hegemonic by the time that FDR took office and used its authority to tie the American working class to the White House—a temptation that the Socialist Party never yielded to.

Like Debs, Norman Thomas threw himself into labor struggles. In 1926, a militant strike of garment workers in Passaic, New Jersey was the first led by Communists. A United Front defense committee was established by Albert Weisbord, a CPer, that included Norman Thomas, who was arrested for attempting to speak on behalf of the workers in a rally. Weisbord eventually ended up in the Trotskyist movement but split to form his own group, a common occurrence in these circles.

I first learned about Thomas’s commitment to the labor movement in Sol Dollinger’s “Not Automatic”, a book about the Flint sit-down strike that his wife Genora helped to lead through the Women’s Auxiliary. Both Sol and Genora were members of the Socialist Party at the time and as such were there to help carry out a “French Turn” urged by Leon Trotsky. This was an entryist tactic to recruit the left-wing of the SP’s into the Trotskyist faction that functioned like an opportunist parasite. Sol wrote that “Two years before the strike broke out, the Socialist Party in Flint organized the League for Industrial Democracy (LID). We held meetings in garages and in basements, secret meetings, so the people wouldn’t get caught and beaten up.”

One of Dollinger’s goals was to restores the SP to its proper place in the Flint sitdown strikes. For example, the strategy to shut down Chevrolet Plant 4 in 1937 was first proposed by the 24 year old SP member Kermit Johnson, who was chairman of the citywide strike committee. When Kermit discussed his tactical plans with his wife Genora, who would marry Sol after they divorced, they agreed that it would be useful to launch a diversionary attack on another GM plant. The Johnsons made their proposal to the local Socialist Party membership, which included fellow party-member Walter Reuther who was in town for consultations. When battles between the strikers and the cops reached a fever pitch, Norman Thomas used his influence to rally broad support for the UAW just as he had done for the Passaic strikers.

At the time of the Flint strike, the SP was growing by leaps and bounds just like the DSA today. It would have been a game-changing outcome if the Trotskyists had not carried out a “French Turn” that facilitated the exit of Genora Johnson and many other radicals. In the aftermath of the SWP’s split with Max Shachtman, James P. Cannon, ever so cocksure about the rectitude of his leadership, saw weeding out the “petty-bourgeois” opposition in the same light as the French Turn. He wrote in the ultra-sectarian “Struggle for a Proletarian Party”:

The worker comrades have to see the faction fight as an unavoidable part of the revolutionary struggle for the consolidation of cadres. We didn’t balk at more than a year’s factional struggle in the SP in order to win over a few hundred people. We needed them in order to turn more effectively to mass work. The present struggle must be seen in that same light fundamentally. In addition, one of the most important positive results of the factional fight inside the SP—perhaps the most important—was that in the process of winning over and partly educating a few hundred new people we also demolished the opportunist party of [Norman] Thomas and Co. This is also an extremely important element of the tactic of combating the split. [emphasis added]

I imagine that Jack Barnes must have read Cannon’s sacred text dozens of times in light of his own victory over the petty-bourgeois opposition in the SWP (including me) that has effectively demolished his own sect.

It was Norman Thomas’s Achilles heel to try to build an all-inclusive party with both a revolutionary and democratic vision. With the sectarian idiots of the Trotskyist movement functioning as Scylla and the Stalinists functioning as Charybdis, the SP was bound to crash on the shoals.

Thomas was way ahead of his time. When the CP and the Trotskyists both banning gay people from membership, he had a different attitude about membership norms that would include same-sexers according to Christopher Phelps, the author of “The Closet in the Party: The Young Socialist Alliance, the Socialist Workers Party, and Homosexuality, 1962 – 1970”. In an article on Phelps’s book, Doug Ireland, a 1960s activist who became a prominent spokesman for gay liberation in the 1970s, describes how the SP nearly broke new ground in 1952, a time when the Cold War was at its height and when homosexuals were as worried about being “exposed” as CPers:

Moreover, in a series of interviews with YPSL and Socialist Party activists from the 1950s, Phelps discovered that the Party came very close to adopting a homosexual emancipation plank in its platform at its 1952 convention. The chairman of YPSL at that time was Vern Davidson, a UCLA senior who had had several same-sex affairs, including with other Party members, and who, he told Phelps, “was instructed by the YPSL to attempt to put a homosexual rights plank before the platform committee.”

Norman Thomas, often called “the grand old man of American socialism,” who had been the Socialist Party's candidate for president six times and who was widely admired as a man of principle in progressive circles way beyond the Socialist Party, was sympathetic when Davidson raised the idea of a homosexual emancipation plank at the platform committee. As Davidson recalls, “He said, ‘Well, Vern, if the YPSL thinks that's something that we should consider, I certainly think we should consider it, and I have nothing against it, but I wish you could draw up something and come back with it.’”

Norman Thomas was not afraid to stick his neck out. He was just as opposed to WWII as an imperialist war as he was to WWI. He also opposed the internment of Japanese-Americans during the war and became critical of Zionism early on, working with the American Council for Judaism that viewed Israel as a colonial project. In 1968, he signed a pledge along with other activists and intellectuals not to pay taxes to protest the war in Vietnam.

Finally, I recommend Thomas’s speech to the 1936 SP rally that is the kind of speech that I’d love to hear from DSA-backed candidates. Maybe as the class struggle deepens in the USA, some DSA’ers will reach the point where they begin to run as socialists rather than liberals and in the name of the DSA. That might not get them guest spots on the Stephen Colbert show but it will help to build the revolutionary movement so desperately needed.

---

Text of Norman Thomas's Address at rally Closing the Socialist Campaign in 1936

NY Times, November 2, 1936

The skies over Europe and Eastern Asia are black with the clouds of war. No one knows when they may break in floods of devastation, or what will be the consequences to America of this fresh carnival of death. Yet the discussion in this political campaign has scarcely touched the issue of peace except in terms of platitudinous generalities.

President Roosevelt has given us the greatest appropriations for the army and navy in the whole world. An administration which has not been able even to begin building homes for the third of our people who live in shacks and slums has dotted the country with its armories and spread the seas with its navies.

Part of its vast expenditure has been in the name of giving relief to the unemployed and all of it has been in the name of defense. Yet neither Mr. Roosevelt nor his Republican rival, who has not challenged this expenditure, has given us any definition of what we are defending. Both of them have accepted our anomalous position in the Philippines with the stake that that position gives us in the quarrels of the Far East.

Neither of them has given any clear definition of genuine neutrality, nor told us plainly how we shall take the profit not only out of war, but preparation for war, and still keep the capitalist system. There has indeed been talk of universal conscription of men and wealth in the next war, but the threat of it will not of it-self prevent new war and, in the event of that quarrel, conscription of wealth under a capitalist government will be lenient. But the farmer at his plow, the worker at his bench, as well as the soldier in the trenches, will be bound in absolute slavery to the war machine.

Finds No Constructive Plan

Our political leaders, Mr. Roosevelt in particular, have talked much about our amiable intentions and what the President calls our program of “good neighborliness.” That has not prevented our Ambassadors in Cuba from open support of reactionary tyranny, nor has it led to any constructive suggestions for the solution of the problems of a world in which nations as well as men are divided inexorably into the House of Have and Have-not.

It is only we Socialists who have urged American leadership in disarmament, the complete denunciation of imperialism, genuine neutrality, and a program for taking profit out of war and preparation for war. That program does not require the conscription of men but of wealth. It cannot, however, be made too clear that we want to socialize America to make peace glorious, not to conscript America for purposes of war and fascism.

Our general policy may be summed up in the phrase “co-operation in what makes for peace, isolation in what makes for war.” We dot not believe that a capitalist America can be trusted to apply military sanctions for ideal ends, or that it should go to war to enforce peace. The sanctions in which alone is hope are workers' sanctions.

The crisis of our times involves not only peace but freedom. We have steadily lost ground during the past few years in our understanding and practice of civil liberty. I have only to recite the melancholy catalogue: the silly but dangerous epidemic of loyalty oaths for teachers; the private armies and arsenals which great corporations have gathered for industrial warfare ; the rise of the abominable Black Legion in Michigan and Ohio, and the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, especially in Florida; Governor McNutt's military law in Indiana, a form of Hoosier Hitlerism likely to be contagious in other States; vigilantes in California; flogging, kidnapping and murder in Florida and Alabama; the extraordinary infamy and terrorism of the plantation system in Eastern Arkansas, protected and defended by the President's friend, Senator Joe Robinson; the repeated denials of the right of speech and assemblage to minority groups, even to a Presidential candidate.

Against these crimes, many of them in Democratic States, President Roosevelt has not used his immense power and influence, nor has Governor Landon spoken out save in terms of cautious general advocacy of tolerance and criticism of loyalty oaths. President Roosevelt never won for us an anti-lynching bill with teeth in it when he could have won it; and Governor Landon has not specifically endorsed an adequate measure.

What Socialists Propose

We Socialists are committed to the preservation and increase of civil liberty, to the absolute vindication of the right of workers, employed and unemployed, to organize and bargain collectively in the cotton fields as well as in great industries. We are committed to Federal anti-lynching legislation, and to an end of racial discrimination in respect to relief, work, education and justice. But we do not believe that liberty can be made secure until we end the tyranny implicit in the control of the few over the resources and the jobs necessary to the life of us all.

For poverty in the midst of potential plenty, the profit system is even more obviously responsible than for war and tyranny. It is the amazing truth that in this campaign there has been no discussion of the conditions of true abundance from either of the major parties. Both Mr. Landon and Mr. Roosevelt explicitly ex-press their devotion to the profit system. Mr. Landon believes that New Deal policies have retarded a process of "recovery" somehow miraculously inherent in the system. Mr. Roosevelt believes that he has rescued from stormy seas the nice old gentleman, capitalism, all except his silk hat. In general, Mr. Landon wants to do the impossible, and restore the epoch of Coolidge plus a few vague bribes to farmers and the aged, as the price of their votes.

A child, who knows addition and subtraction (multiplication and division are unnecessary) would know that it is not possible to fulfill the Republican promises to balance the budget, reduce taxes, take the government out of business, and at the same time maintain relief through local agencies, but with Federal aid; though artificial subsidies give the farmers better prices than the New Deal has given them ; and pay better pensions to the aged over 65 than the New Deal has offered them!

The Republican campaign has been on an incredibly low level of sincerity and intelligence. Even when its speakers have been right or half right in some of their criticisms, they have destroyed the effect by exaggeration and utter lack of a constructive program. If I refrain from further criticism of the Republican case it is because I am so firmly convinced that its ticket will be defeated by a large majority on Tuesday.

Discusses Union Party

It is fortunately unnecessary to discuss at length the program of the Lemke-Coughlin Union party. For various reasons, it and the curious combination of political messiahs and discredited politicians who lead it have been steadily losing ground since about the first of September, but the conditions, economic and psychological, which gave rise to it still continue and from them, unless we can show to the people a more excellent way, a Fascist demagogue may yet rise to dictatorial power.

Certain it is that the nearest approach to the Lemke-Coughlin program, with its promises of good wages to workers, good profits to farmers and little business men, all within the confines of the capitalist system, is to be found in the economic planks of the basic Nazi platform of 1920 in Germany.

The significant fact is the stampede to Roosevelt—a stampede which, for very different reasons, has been shared in or supported by such diverse groups as the Pendergast machine of Missouri, the Hague machine of New Jersey, Tammany Hall of New York—Jimmy Walker got the ovation here last night--the Kelly-Nash outfit of Chicago, Joe Robinson of Arkansas, Governor McNutt of Indiana, bankers like Giannini of California and even some members of the House of Morgan, the editors of The New York Times, and most of the American Federation of Labor, both followers of John L. Lewis and of William Green. Even the Communists have given indirect support by their opportunistic program, their misleading slogan of democracy versus fascism and their concentration of attack on only one capitalist party.

Quite obviously some of these people are , going to be disappointed. But Mr. Roosevelt permits them all to think it will be the other fellow until after the election. His last night's rhetorical speech in this hail answered no specific questions. The constitutional crisis is serious. It is a question whether there is any power, Federal or State, which can act in another emergency to assert power over our economic processes. Mr. Roosevelt has discussed no plans for dealing with the situation.

There are still 10,000,000 unemployed. Re-employment lags far behind business recovery and industrial payrolls behind both. Relief is unsatisfactory and the new Security Law is likely to alienate men from the whole idea of social security. Roosevelt discusses no program of relief, no amendments to the Security Law and no plan for redistributing income or avoiding new capitalist crises more catastrophic than through which we are passing.

I can understand, though I do not share the reasons why labor—most labor—supports him, but not the reasons why labor has demanded nothing of him. I am hopeful for a farmer-labor party of the right sort and rejoice in every bit of evidence that it is becoming desirable in the minds of workers, but when a labor committee or a labor party endorses only Democratic candidates, without even a stirring slogan of its own, it Is James Aloysius Farley and not the workers who have won.

Holds System Has Failed

By no such victory shall we escape the fate of Italy or Germany when new war or catastrophe comes upon us. It is not the difference between Roosevelt and Landon that can save, any more than did the difference between Wilson and Hughes In 1916. It is not a few leaders but a system which has failed, the profit system to which Roosevelt professes allegiance. By its very nature it breeds strife. It rests on human exploitation and requires relative scarcity to maintain its price levels.

Our deliverance from war, tyranny and poverty demand the loyalties and institutions of a co-operative commonwealth. There are specific Socialist plans which I have repeatedly discussed, for Constitutional revision, housing, genuine relief, aid to education, help for young and old and deliverance for the farmers. But our hope is not in these ; It is in the production and fair division of the great national income which Socialism makes possible.

The immediate demand of Socialists is for socialism, and in education and organization for socialism lies our only hope of giving vision, and purpose, and direction, to those who seek the new day. It is this positive fight for socialism in which lies security against war and fascism. We want a society in which engineers work for us and the satisfaction of our wants, not for the profit of absentee owners. And this is possible only when we own socially the great means of pro-duction and distribution. You say that we shall not win? Probably not this year. But the best evidence that the people are awakening will be found in the size of the Socialist vote, and by it, as by no other yardstick the victors will measure the demand of the people for plenty, for peace and for freedom.

There is a greater argument than that. It is that the size of the Socialist vote and the enthusiasm for Socialist organization will serve to rally the hosts of the workers of hand and brain to win through their unions, their consumers' cooperatives and their party, the victory of a federation of cooperative commonwealths, wherein power-driven machinery shall be the only slave, and the great human family shall be released at last from the prison house of war, insecurity, exploitation and needless poverty. It is to help bring this day that I ask you to vote the Socialist ticket. Vote it on the ballot, write it in Ohio and other States where the right has been undemocratically denied ; but vote Socialist, for plenty, peace, freedom and the brotherhood of man.