Some recent controversy in connection with the statement on the US Presidential elections by Jamala Rogers posted on the FRSO website, along with a odd exchange that accompanied a piece that I wrote at The Black Commentator on the now-halted John Edwards campaign, caused me to reflect some more on the radical Left and elections. Is there a point for the radical Left to be thinking in terms of participating in elections, be they national or local? If so, in what capacity?

Contrary to those, such as the Greens, who suggest an immediate third-party run for national (and local) office, I believe that the actual conditions plus the nature of the electoral system do not justify it. To borrow from the remarks offered by long-time writer and activist Frances Fox Piven at the recent Left Forum in New York City, there are those who wish to engage in an electoral politics that does not exist in the USA and wish to avoid the electoral politics that does.

Central to a radical left practice must be a concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Among other things this means understanding the nature of the state in a particular social formation, including how it operates, its history and the class forces operating within it. The US state is extremely undemocratic, particularly when it comes to electoral politics, making it difficult for minor or third parties to operate and be considered relevant. This reality has often led many left activists to turn entirely away from electoral politics and focus on non-electoral social movement activity. While this work may at times be exemplary, it is often disconnected from the fight for political power and can be condemned to the realm of resistance-only activity. This is not a criticism of the work, but a criticism of the decision to turn away from electoral politics.

The Situation in the Middle East

The threat of a US attack on Iran has come to the fore again. The forced retirement of Admiral Fallon as head of CentCom removes a leader of the majority in the high command who think that any action to broaden an already disastrous war is flat-out nuts. And Bush is sending Cheney, a strong proponent of attacking Iran, to Israel for the talks between Israel and Hamas.

Israeli Defense Forces have killed over 130 Palestinians, a quarter of them children in attacks on the desperate, ghettoized people of Gaza, carried out by US-supplied F-16s, Apache helicopters, and TOW missiles. Even as this continues, Congress is debating increasing military aid to Israel to $5.5 billion next year and leaked State Department documents show the US actively promoted civil war between the PLO and Hamas. The fruit of all this was evident at the recent Arab League meeting where countries seen as pro-US were shamed and the dwindling of US influence in the Middle East was obvious.

Every four years the Left finds itself in roughly the same situation. Having paid little sustained attention to building a progressive, mass, relevant electoral initiative, the Left is confronted with Presidential campaigns that are presented to it rather than campaigns over which it was instrumental in building. Facing this challenge, there are generally three options that are pursued:

• Jump, as individuals, into the campaign(s) that seems the least obnoxious among the Democrats.
  
  
• Build an independent campaign that is largely irrelevant but often feels good to participate in because it is a venue in which to vent anger.
  
  
• Abstain.
  
  

Following these campaigns there is also regularly a shaking of the hands as the Left expresses its frustration with the lack of good, viable electoral choices. For a brief moment there is the discussion of building an ongoing electoral presence--and in some quarters, the suggestion that, irrespective of conditions, now is the time for a third party--and then presto, most of the Left is back involved in our normal--non-electoral--political activity.

Thus, we find ourselves in 2008 presented with an all-too-familiar situation. Leaving aside, for the moment, Congressional and Senatorial campaigns, the Left has found itself presented with options rather than having helped to shape any, at least as a Left.

Commentary by the National Executive Committee of FRSO/OSCL

We have now had some days to digest the results of the Venezuelan election, and our committee would like to offer several thoughts as part of the larger movement summation of this experience.

Despite the demonizing of President Chávez and his intentions by the Bush administration, the Venezuelan opposition, and the US corporate media, it is very noteworthy that upon losing, he offered a principled concession. Though Bush, et al., had tried to convince the world that President Chávez was determined to win, legally or illegally, President Chávez stood by his word. Rumors that he was compelled to do so by his military have been unsupported by any facts and sound much more like CIA disinformation campaigns.

For many of us on the Left in the US, if we are to be honest, the lead-up to this election has been a period of very mixed emotions. Though not discussed very publicly, among left and progressive circles in the USA there was a certain uneasiness regarding President Chávez's attempt to remove presidential term limits. Although there were many other components to the constitutional proposal (a fact that is significant when one ponders the calculation of putting all of these together in one yes/no vote), the matter of term limits was the point around which there was probably the most attention, if not concern. Some of the reforms included in order to expand Chávez's socialist agenda were reducing the workday and workweek, ending the autonomy of the central bank, and prohibiting large land estates, to name a few. While most of the Left and progressives vehemently denounced the hypocrisy of those who would condemn President Chávez yet say nothing about the British electoral system that lacks any term limits, this was separate and apart from our deeper feelings about the actual removal of term limits.

With the publication of Which Way is Left?, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization takes an important step in advancing a strategy for a realignment and refoundation of the revolutionary Left. Central to this notion is the idea that it is not enough to struggle out differences in order to achieve unity. Unity must come about through an organized process of principled struggle--otherwise, what results will be chaos.

The unspoken question that in many respects haunts the discussion revolves around what we, in the radical and socialist Left, should be attempting to build. FRSO/OSCL calls for a party, yet many of us hear that even using that term unsettles many comrades who nevertheless seek tighter forms of organization.

Stanley Aronowitz offered an important contribution through the publication of his book Left Turn, which explicitly calls for a party of the radical Left. Aronowitz makes a strong case for such a party, though he seems to suggest both a party that can participate in the electoral realm--an unlikely possibility for an explicitly radical party at this moment in the USA--and a party that gives radical, socialist leadership to mass struggles. Aronowitz also offers a timely and devastating critique of post-modernism, a parasitic tendency within the Left. As such, this is a useful and generally positive intervention into a growing discussion of, quite literally, which way is Left.

The following represents some thoughts regarding what it is that we should be trying to build. In offering this discussion piece, I am not attempting to preempt any consideration of the strategy of unifying and reconstructing the radical Left. Rather this is hoped to be received as part of the discussion that needs to unfold. In the interests of space and conciseness, it is offered in the form of theses.

Since the beginning of 2007, the period since FRSO/OSCL's most recent congress, our organization's strategy has been different from any in the past. In the previous three-year period between FRSO/OSCL congresses (2003-2006), the US Left faced chaotic and quickly changing political conditions--the US war on Iraq; the US-backed invasion of Lebanon by Israel; the devastation and displacement caused by Hurricane Katrina , with the attendant racism and criminal negligence of the state; and the extreme immigrant backlash leading to the mobilization and uprising of immigrants. From these conditions and from our continued belief in the need for greater organization by the Left, we believe that if we truly want to build a revolutionary movement in the United States, the Left cannot continue to function as it has.

To build such a movement, we must develop a real revolutionary organization--an organized vehicle and plan for moving forward that is based among all the oppressed. While we continue to engage and organize among sectors such as workers, oppressed nationalities, youth and students; in the anti-war movement; in Katrina survivor solidarity; for immigrant rights; etc., we will do so with an eye towards building stronger relationships and alliances among the social movements and the organized Left.

Towards that end, our new strategy document "Which Way Is Left? Theory, Politics, Organization and 21st-Century Socialism" gives an analysis of the current period and the challenges we face. It details the lessons learned from previous socialist experiments. And it argues for the crucial need to build a revolutionary party based on these lessons that can struggle for a socialism of the 21st century.

That said, we want to talk to you--those engaged in the struggle against capitalism and imperialism! We want to hear your ideas about what it is going to take to build a stronger Left, what forms of organization are needed, and what issues or concerns you may have about building revolutionary organization.

Download a PDF of "Which Way Is Left?"

For more information, write us at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

At the US Social Forum one of the most popular workshops was titled "Building Revolutionary Strategy and Organization in the 21st Century: A Multi-Generational Dialogue." This session was hosted by five organizations:

• Freedom Road Socialist Organization/Organización Socialista del Camino para la Libertad
• Solidarity
• Bring the Ruckus
• League of Revolutionaries for a New America
• The Labor Community Strategy Center

The Second Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina finds the Gulf Coast still in a devastated state with tens of thousands or Katrina survivors unable to return to any sense of normalcy. The response to the horrendous damage done by the winds of Katrina and the subsequent floods, have been described as a "boil on the body politic" of the US by some. Others have likened it to an "ethnic cleansing."

Two hundred thousand residents of New Orleans still in exile; 118,000 jobs gone; 1,500 out of 5,100 public housing units occupied; 81,000 households still living in FEMA trailers; 1 out of 7 New Orleans hospitals operating at pre-storm levels; 200% increase in rents. These are just some of the grim statistics.

Katrina and its aftermath and the occupation of Iraq are the defining political moments of the first decade of the 21st century. The ways in which the Bush Administration has handled both and the people's response will shape the political and social contours of the world for decades to come.

Durante el segundo aniversario del Huracán Katrina encontramos la Costa del Golfo todavía en un estado de destrucción con miles de Sobrevivientes de Katrina sin la opción de poder volver a un sentido de normalidad. La respuesta al daño horrible hecho por los vientos e inundaciones de Katrina ha sido referido como una "peste en el cuerpo político" de los EUA. Otros lo han comparado a una "limpieza étnica."

Doscientos miles residentes de Nuevo Orleáns siguen viviendo en el exilio; 118.000 trabajos ya no existen; 1.500 de 5.100 unidades de vivienda pública están ocupadas; 81.000 familias quedan en trailas de FEMA (Agencia Federal del Manejo de Emergencias); Solo 1 de cada 7 hospitales en Nuevo Orleáns está operando al mismo que antes de la tormenta; 200% aumento en el costo de la renta. Estas son solamente unas pocas de las estadísticas severas.

Katrina y sus consecuencias y la ocupación de Irak son los momentos políticos definitivos de la primera década del siglo 21. Las maneras en las cuales la Administración del Presidente Bush ha manejado la situación y la respuesta pública darán forma a los contornos políticos y sociales del mundo por décadas en el futuro.

The National Executive Committee of FRSO/OSCL is pleased to announce that Camino Press has published a new book: The Cost of Privilege: Taking On the System of White Supremacy and Racism. This book is a comprehensive account of the key role that white supremacy plays in our society and of how white privilege functions as the basic building blocks of that system. The book also looks at the history of how this system developed, how it is deeply tied into other forms of oppression, and what we need to do to organize and overturn white supremacy.

The Cost of Privilege is an important contribution to revolutionary strategy in the United States. Understanding white supremacist national oppression as a method of social control and domination is fundamental to understanding the mechanisms that have obstructed virtually every progressive social movement over the last several hundred years. Racial oppression is central to the construction of US capitalism.