Thought Experiment

TNL writes:

I suspect that there will be some effort at a broad unification of left groups in the next year or so and that this whole discussion of abandoning the CP “brand” is anticipatory of that.”

David_D writes:

“I see the CPUSA as better suited to functioning as a part of Progressive Democrats of America, or something like that.”
Lets do a thought experiment.

This is a historical “what if” — not a prediction. It is the thinking through of a scenario.

Lets assume that November 2011 there is a regroupment of “Socialists within the Democratic Party” (using some name). They announce an “inside outside” strategy.

Thought Experiment

Various currently existing trends make adjustments for the merger: CPUSA prepares its members to set away from the CP “branding.” COC positions itself. Various co-thinkers and allies come in.

Is this regroupment possible? And then what?

Is TNL speaking of a “a broad unification of left groups” that is something OTHER than “Democratic Socialists for inside/outside”?

Who does it drag to the right? Who does it free up to move “to the left”? Are there other possibilities — would anyone consider making themselves a marginal revolutionary left within that “unified left”?

Will they form a joint trend, is it through real “merger” that leaves old organizational names and shells behind? Or would they each separately “enter” something like PDA (while maintaining distinct structures, as some did during the Jesse Jackson campaign)? How loose would it be? Can they really create a common leadership and structure? Through what transitional forms?

Is there a 2012 electoral candidacy that could be used as whip and bait for this? I find it hard to conceive that they would back a primary challenge to Obama “from the faint left” — but I’m not in touch with them enough to really know.

What are their prospects of a unified “Democratic Socialists for the Democrats”? Will their aggregation have any “heft”? Within the Democratic Party left liberal circles? In their ability to reach both leftists and currently not-committed people?

What would happen to currently “blended” groups — like the New York Study Group? Or FRSO/OSCL? Do they enter? Do they leave old organizational shells behind? (I.e.: is it enter or merge?) What happens to those who don’t want to go?

Would this happen on a publicly “Socialist” basis (as the  CPUSA discussion implies) — or would their logic drop “Democratic Socialism” too? In favor of “Progressive”? Or will it be “Progressive” (to the public) but secretly (wink, wink, down low) “Socialist” to their hoped-for “left constituency”? And what will be their strategy for avoiding being Glenn Beck fodder (day after day) for the next two years? Isn’t that one reason alone that they may not form (or may not “go public”)? What possible formation could they create that won’t be an instant liability to Obama’s reelection?

Note: The main reason that the CPUSA ran its own public candidates for years was precisely so they could avoid having their real Democrat preferences being red-baited. They wanted to be able to play inside-the-beltway politics with leading Democrats (like Mondale or McGovern) but wanted to be able to say “No these people aren’t communist-backed, we are running our own slate against them.” It was a tactical beard. How will any new formation solve that same problem…?

And on another point: Didn’t they lose their moment? Wasn’t the moment for “socialists for Obama” in 2009. Aren’t they now in shambles, dissed  from above and from below? Isn’t this a moment where that left is swinging into dismay over its previous Democratic buzz? It seems like a bad moment for such a regroupment — demanded (perhaps) by their 2012 electoral logic and needs, but out of tune with the actual sentiments of their audiences?

Does this mean that other more radical forces are “cut loose” — to find each other in a new, different separate revolutionary socialist milieu? What does that form around? Green, third party, labor party, non-Democratic party electoralism? Routine old-school movementism? Or is a harder revolutionary discussion able to be heard?

What would a consolidated “socialists for Democrats” mean for the prospects of antiwar movement?

If there is a more explicit, organized, unified effort to fuse (and subordinate) democratic socialists to establishment liberals in a long term “inside outside strategy” — what does it mean for efforts to regroup a new revolutionary movement (and within it a new communist current)?

Related posts: