Would Lenin have Supported Bernie Sanders?
Political power, especially the power that is disputed amongst insurgent groups, is not demonstrated in the eventual victory of one side of an issue, but rather in the setting of the boundary between sides. Social democrats, or as they like to style themselves, democratic socialists, by their electoral activity, and at times success of their candidates in the United States, have seized the power to formulate the great political question of our times as thus: “Will the use of electoral means be able to transition the American economy and government to a more socialistic system?”, This question, as the result of historical circumstance in the current moment has been formulated as such, “Should American leftists support Bernie Sanders for President?”
Those who consider themselves part of the militant left (either of an anarchist or Leninist variety), in the fact that they have failed to formulate the current general political question, have found themselves naturally in opposition to social democrats on this question. The answer from this current of the left, from those who take seriously their convictions (there are those leftists, who in frighteningly large numbers, would support both the ideas of Lenin and the candidacy of Bernie Sanders without the slightest of thought about the matter), is an emphatic “No”. Electoralism is no sufficient avenue to changing the American system, and accordingly, the candidacy of Bernie Sanders is at best, a distraction from leftist goals, and at worst, a mirage in a political desert, giving false hope, and draining resources, precious and few of the left.
The militant left should not kneel to the social democratic definition of the question, and accordingly, should not play its role as the “expected opposition” coming from the left. Rather, it should be our task to, paradoxically, redefine the question, by supporting the social democratic side in its aspirations to get Bernie Sanders elected. It is only after the social democratic ghosts are dispensed with, can more serious options be considered.
One might say that this position finds no precedent in the cannon of the radical left, although, a quick inspection of Lenin’s “Left-Wing Communism, and Infantile Disorder”, proves differently. The passage I will be quoting is long, although I believe deserving of being kept within it’s entirety. For historical context, Henderson was the first Labour cabinet minister in the United Kingdom:
The British Communists very often find it hard at present to approach the masses and even to get them to listen to them . If I come out as a Communist and call upon the workers to vote for Henderson against Lloyd George, they will certainly give me a hearing. And I will be able to explain in a popular manner not only why Soviets are better than Parliament and why the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill (disguised by the signboard of bourgeois “democracy”), but also that I wanted with my vote to support Henderson in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man-that the impending establishment of a Henderson government will prove that I am right, will bring the masses over to my side, and will accelerate the political death of the Hendersons and the Snowdens just as was the case with their confreres in Russia and Germany .
And if the objection is raised that these tactics are too “subtle,” or too complicated, that the masses will not understand them, that they will split up and scatter our forces, will prevent us concentrating them on the Soviet revolution, etc ., I will reply to the “Lefts” who raise this objection : don’t ascribe your dogmatism to the masses! The masses in Russia are probably no better educated than the masses in England ; if anything they are less so. Yet the masses understood the Bolsheviks ; and the fact that on the eve of the Soviet revolution, in September 1917, the Bolsheviks put up their candidates for a bourgeois parliament (the Constituent Assembly) and on the morrow of the Soviet revolution, in November 1917, took part in the election to this Constituent Assembly, which they dispersed on January 5, 1918, did not hamper the Bolsheviks, but on the contrary, helped them.
Simply put, it is possible to support a democratic socialist candidate, precisely so that he, and his government may demonstrate the ineffectuality of democratic socialism, and that this seemingly paradoxical position adopted by the party can be understood by the masses. Before I demonstrate how this notion applies to the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, allow me to dispel with the arguments by other supposedly revolutionary leftists, who also support Bernie Sanders.
Peter Coffin, a “BreadTube” intellectual, wraps his endorsement in the of Bernie Sanders in the notions that, due to the fact that Bernie is an “us, not I” candidate, he will plant a seed from which a revolution can sprout. In his view, the struggle for reform will provide practical lessons in strategy and organization, and will move people to the left as they see that reform is not enough. Additionally, Bernie Sander’s reforms will open up necessary breathing space for reforms to take place.
The first of these claims is beyond ridiculous. Almost every progressive candidate has used the rhetoric of “us, not I”, which is fine in itself, but sadly rhetoric alone cannot take power for the working class. The point about the training ground that reform provides is valid, although unfortunately, Bernie Sanders is not himself a reform, but merely a flesh and blood man, and the reforms he purposes have already been pushed for, in particular and in the abstract. For instance, the “Fight for $15 Movement” has been around since at least 2012. The question must be asked, is the Bernie Sanders campaign therefore vital for creating these reform movements, or does it just repackage them in the box of a presidential bid? The last point is also valid. It is true that capitalism is an immense drain on financial, temporal, and emotional resources, and some reform will free up some of these resources. However, historical example, unfortunately proves otherwise. Such is the case of the Russian Revolution, when because of the war effort, bread had to be rationed, leading to the Woman’s Day protests that started the February Revolution.
Another line of reasoning can be observed in “The Socialist Manifesto” (name ring a bell?), by Bhaskar Sunkara. His view is more traditional, to the extent that he believes that reform under a Sander’s regime will grow to such an extent, that the entire economy will be transferred to a socialistic system. The arguments against this a numerable, and obvious, to the extent that the labor of writing them down is almost too much, but nethertheless, I strive. The international nature of capitalism renders national reform inconsequential, reform can be easily repealed in a system of electoral democracy, ect…
Now, with these nuisances liquidated, let us analyze the situation of Bernie Sanders. The appearance of Bernie Sanders has irrevocably split the Democratic Party into two wings, the centrist, and the progressive. At this current moment, at the national level (aside from a few congressional seats held by the likes of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Rashida Talib), the progressive wing represented by Sanders has not found victory. Without the victory of this branch, there will always be the lingering hope that the next time around, things will be different. This history is already playing itself out before us. After Sanders lost the nomination in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, the questions of “what if” possessed the left wing of the Democratic Party. What if the Democratic Party was not skewed in favor of Clinton, will Bernie have won? What if Bernie had won, would he have been able to defeat Trump? The presence of these spectors motivated Sanders to run again in 2020, despite his advanced age, and the fact that the Democratic Party Establishment is still firmly against him. And who is to say, especially if progressive Democrats pick up even more seats in 2022 in Congress, that these questions will still remain, and motivate Sanders again to run, or if he is too old, for someone else to take his stead. Very likely, the hopes of progressive and socialist America can be forever bound up in these candidates. So let us answer the question, “what if”, and elect Bernie Sanders. No longer will his promise float above use in the heavens, but will be living on the earth, and will have to be tested by first Trump, and then by the presidency itself.
Gaining the nomination, Sanders will then have to face up against Trump. Despite the fact that Sanders now leads Trump in national polls, the experience of 2016 has demonstrated that the election is not determined by national popularity, but by the ability to win the electoral votes of a few key states. If Sanders loses to Trump, the progressive wing will almost certainly be issued out of the party. This will lead a whole group of people, trained in organizing by the campaign, but disillusioned by electoral politics, at least within the framework of the Democratic Party. This situation could lead to the formation of a socialist party, independent of the Democratic Party, or to the further radicalization of the DSA (forcing it to give up its cooperation with the Democrats). This movement could very well lead to a revolutionary moment, but the situation in which Bernie Sanders wins the White House, brings even more possibilities.
Bernie Sanders is a candidate, more than any other, who fills the substance of his campaign with promises: the cancelation of student and medical debt, Medicare for All, The Green New Deal, 15 dollar minimum wage, and free public college and university to just name a few. The cancelation of debt is the most precarious promise, as I am unsure as to whether that is within the power of the government to do such a thing. As for the other reforms, in order for them to pass, they would need a filibuster proof Senate, and control of the House, considering that even the centrist Democrats, who up until this point have been antagonist towards Sander’s reforms, will join with the progressive wing. Additionally, these reforms will be met with Constitutional challenges, and will be put up in front of a Supreme Court that is not only conservative, but young. The oldest conservative Justice is Clarence Thomas, who is is only 71 (compared to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 86).
The fact that it will be so difficult, after the election of Bernie Sanders, to push forward his reforms will only reveal ever more sharply the patently undemocratic nature of the American federal government — not only in terms of those issues that are contemporarily discussed (corporate influence, voter suppression, and gerrymandering), but elements that are carved into the Constitution, namely, the Senate being a body which is determined on the basis of equal representation of the states, the fact that only American citizens have the right to vote, the disenfranchisement of the prison population, the disenfranchisement of America’s colonies and the District of Columbia, and the fact that calls for amendments to the US Constitution can only be made by Congress, or the state legislatures, and not by means of a national referendum.
If Sanders, due to these undemocratic vestigial organs, is unable to pass his reforms, then the message of the above passage will ring loud and true. The failures of social democracy will be revealed naked for all to see. If Sanders, with the help of celestial powers, is able to pass his reforms, despite for a moment of brief celebration immediately afterwards, in due time these reforms will by proven inconsequential. The Green New Deal, despite its ambition, attempts to deal with the problem of global climate change on a national level. A Sanders regime cannot reverse the processes of automation and outsourcing that threatens to desiccate the American middle class.
The American left must come to terms with itself. As of now, the only significant voice of the left that exists in broader American society is the voice of Sanderite Social Democracy, and the DSA. When that voice quavers, and proves itself ineffectual, the revolutionary left must be ready to take its place, and pronounce its slogans loudly and clearly. A revolutionary left organization must be clear with the working class as to its intentions in electoral politics — that it attempts to use it not to fulfill promises, but to demonstrate the ineffectuality of electoral politics.
For the first time in American history, History is providing us with a clear date for when these shifts will occur, November 3rd, 2020. Let us not take the clarity of this future moment for granted.
