Friday, May 09 2008 - 07:50 PM
Bourgeois 'socialism'
While quoting one B. Langrehr and his or her America Turning To Socialism, Larry Hobson (aka “bear”) wrote (in part): “‘Socialism has been visibly growing in power and influence inside the Democratic Party. Barack Obama has been refined and polished by a powerful group of Democratic Socialists called the Progressive Caucus.’”

Assuming that this B. Langrehr is of the understanding that the Democratic Socialists of America or “DSA” is a political party in and of itself, and while otherwise ignoring his or her obtrusive and silly effort to tar and feather both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party by falsely associating them with socialism (as if socialism were something bad and “evil”), I ask, what of the connection between the DSA and the Progressive Caucus?
In his Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx wrote: A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society…(the bourgeois socialists) want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.
One need only examine the Democratic “Socialists” of America’s platforms, concepts and tactics in order to understand how uncannily close Dr. Marx came to describing the reformist platforms – rather than the revolutionary platform – of the DSA, for as we have just seen the Democratic “Socialists” of America (Party) is a quintessential example of what Karl Marx described as “bourgeois ‘socialism.’”
In addressing the Progressive Caucus itself, I should like to reproduce the contents of a letter to the editor – of the Antelope Valley Press – that I wrote nearly ten years ago; the soundness of which, I believe, has withstood the test of time remarkably well:
Thomas Graham’s letter, “Conservatives back the socialist agenda” [yes, “Conservatives back the socialist agenda”], asserted that the Congressional Progressive Caucus…wants collective or governmental ownership of the means of production (especially land and water) and distribution of goods: creation of a society in which there is no private property; and a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by the democratic process."
But to visit the Congressional progressive Caucus’ website is to understand that the caucus clearly does not advocate social-collective-ownership of the means of economic production – that the Congressional Progressive Caucus does not advocate socialism.
For those who do not enjoy Internet access, I offer the caucus’ “Statement of Purpose” as proof of my assertion:
“The Progressive Caucus is organized around the principle of social and economic justice, a non-discriminatory society and national priorities which represent the interests of all people, not just the wealthy and the powerful.
“Our purpose is to present thoughtful, practical solutions to the social and economic problems facing America. Our people-based agenda extends to job training, to economic conversion, to single payer health care reform, to adequate funding for the AIDS crisis, to environmental reform, and to women’s rights.
“Now that the cold war is over, this nations budget and overall priorities must reflect that reality. We support further cuts in outdated and unnecessary military spending, a more progressive tax system in which wealthy taxpayers and corporations contribute their fair share, and a substantial increase in social programs [in social ”reforms"] designed to meet the needs of low- and middle-income American families. We believe that these goals fit within an overall commitment to deficit reduction." [Emphasis not in original.]
Clearly, the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ agenda is not of a revolutionary – a socialist – nature, regardless of its association with the vulgar Democratic “Socialists” of America. It is nothing more than worthless liberalism. And only the most artless amongst us would equate liberalism with socialism. —Guy Marsh, Palmdale, Letters From Readers, Antelope Valley Press, December 29, 1998.

Matt Keltner: The Progressive Caucus has been in existence since the Depression [the depression of the 1930s] Again, none of them [members of the Progressive Caucus] – with the exception of Sen. Bernard Sanders – have ever identified as “socialist.”

Yes, the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ former chairperson, Senator Bernard (Bernie) Sanders, I-Vermont, does indeed identify himself as a “socialist.” Yet social democrats also use the name “socialist,” but are not socialists. And there is no doubt about the fact that Bernard Sanders, independent from the Democratic “Socialists” of America or not, is nothing more than a social democrat.
Bernard Sanders often cites Sweden as the model for the sort of so-called socialism that he advocates. Sweden, where the Swedish capitalist class owns nearly all of that nation’s means of industrial production, the Swedish state owns a small portion while Swedish society owns absolutely no amount of said means of production. Sweden, where the working class enjoys no more control over the content and conduct of industrial production, or over the distribution of its products and services, than does the American working class. Sweden, where the working class is still exploited under a wages system.
It has often been suggested that the fact that Vermont’s voters have never been afraid of the word “socialist” is a positive development. And there just might be a grain of truth in that, insofar as the red-baiting tactics employed by Mr. Sanders’ opponents over these many years have always been rejected by Vermont’s electorate. Unfortunately, however, the “socialism” that Vermonters have learned to be unafraid of is a socialism that workers would soon become disappointed and disgusted with were it ever implemented, for it would be nothing more than liberalism – worthless liberalism.
A “better cushion” or “safety net” within the context of a capitalist economy, which the likes of Bernard Sanders and the D"S"A advocate, is not socialism and it is not the goal that we workers should be struggling for – not when the means of abolishing capitalist-caused hardship and turmoil lie within our grasp.
So again I ask: What of the connection which lies between the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Bernard Sanders and the Democratic “Socialists” of America?

Persevere.
Yours in revolution not reformism
Guy Robert Marsh
Lancaster, 93536
Member-at-large (1990-present):
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)

Member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
Member: Democratic Party (1982-1988)
Member: Republican Party (1976-1882)

Listen to non-commercial listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio (tune to 90.7 FM, KPFK, Los Angeles; 98.7 FM, KPFK in Santa Barbara County.

I’m out.

(Note: As per usual, any and all childish comment posts directed too this thread will be deleted. Thank you.)

Would you like to comment on this blog post? Login to talk back!