A Look At Bernie Sanders' Electoral Socialism

Bernie v. Debs: The Confusing Terminology of a Self-Avowed Socialist

Band-aids don’t fix bullet holes
— Taylor Swift

The presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, the formerly-independent senator from Vermont, has already accomplished what seemed impossible: it has further confused the American people about the meaning of socialism.

Sanders has consistently referred to himself as a "democratic socialist" for decades. While he was a student at the Univeristy of Chicago (1960-1964) his reading included works by Jefferson, Lincoln, Fromm, Dewey, Debs, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Freud, and Reich.[1] Though his writings reflect a greater influence by Freud and Reich than Debs and Marx, the mere fact that he’s read Marx and knows of Eugene V. Debs almost makes Sanders a revolutionary leftist by contemporary American standards. In 1979, disappointed that many of the students he spoke with had never heard of Debs, Sanders wrote and produced a 30-minute narrated film on his life and ideas. (If you have never heard of Eugene Victor Debs and you have any interest in American socialism, it is worth your time to watch Sanders' video or at least skim the Wikipedia entry on Debs.)

The Debs video was so successful that Sanders considered producing “a video series on other American radicals — Mother Jones, Emma Goldman, Paul Robeson, and other extraordinary Americans who most young people have never heard of.” Unfortunately he never did.[2]

Bernie’s first involvement in electoral politics came in 1971 when he stopped by a meeting of the Liberty Union Party in Vermont and got nominated as the party’s candidate for an upcoming Senate special election. (Today the Liberty Party is so disappointed in his foreign policy that they have an article linked to the top of their website which refers to him as “Bernie the Bomber.”)

America has been a hostile environment to anyone and anything associated with the S-word during Sanders' entire political career, but he has still had impressive success at electoral politics as a self-avowed socialist in Vermont. When he ran for a fourth term as the mayor of Burlington in 1987, the Democratic and Republican Parties finally decided to join forces and run a single candidate against him. Sanders still won (as did his third-party successor, Peter Clavelle, who beat a joint Democratic-Republican candidate in the 1989 election).[3] Even as a senator he still considers Eugene Debs to be a hero of his, and he even at one point had (maybe still has) a plaque commemorating Debs hanging on the wall in his Washington office.[4]

Sanders has not shied away from the “socialist” label during his current campaign; on the contrary, he seems to welcome every interview as a chance to emphasize to the American people that his democratic socialism is nothing scary or radical. He has always been indirect but clear that what he means by “democratic socialism” amounts to what is more commonly called “social democracy.” But when discussing contemporary political ideas in English, it is generally important not to confuse “democratic socialism” with “social democracy.” They now mean nearly opposite things.

The term “democratic socialism” is used to describe a broad range of approaches which emphasize a bottom-up and peaceful-ish eradication of capitalist ownership and transition to a socialist economy (whatever that might look like). It has come to mark a general distinction between Marxism-Leninism (especially Stalinism) and other socialist traditions both evolutionary/parliamentary and revolutionary.

In contrast, “social democracy” usually refers to social and economic reforms which seek a more humane and democratically-controlled capitalist economy. It has come to be almost synonymous with the policies put in place by the Nordic states during the 20th century. In Sanders' terminology, it aims to curtail the excessive political and economic power currently enjoyed by America’s “billionaire class” in order to restore and maintain a healthy “middle class” supported by a Scandinavian-style welfare system.

But the two terms have not always referred to distinct ideas; a hundred years ago they were used interchangeably. And even while social democracy today doesn’t challenge capitalism, its reforms did grow out of the broad socialist and labor movements of the 19th century. One of the early theorists of social democracy was a German Marxist named Eduard Bernstein who became influenced by the British parliamentarian socialists of the Fabian Society. Bernstein argued at the turn of the 20th century that capitalism was capable of adapting and reforming itself to provide workers with rights and prosperity so that its collapse was avoidable and its extralegal overthrow was unnecessary. One of Bernstein’s most famous pronouncements is: “The final aim of socialism, whatever it may be, means nothing to me; it is the movement itself which is everything.”

Rosa Luxemburg, another German theorist, provided a defense of orthodox Marxism against Bernstein’s reformism as Reform or Revolution? (1900). In language which could be directed at a Sanders-style social democrat today, Luxemburg noted that reforms must be made in relation to a goal, so to divorce the socialist goal from social reforms is to abandon socialism itself:

[P]eople who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Our program becomes not the realization of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labor system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself.

While Sanders' use of “democratic socialism” to refer to mere reforms of capitalism is confusing in its anachronism, it is not without precedent. And there is a specific thread of American socialism that is almost continuous with Sanders' presidential bid and which provides some historic context to help understand the movement building around Sanders.

The short version of that history begins in the late 1950s with a man named Michael Harrington who is today most famous for his 1962 book on poverty (The Other America). Harrington was something of a protégé to Max Shachtman, a long-time member of the American socialist scene and an associate of Leon Trotsky. In 1958 Shachtman and his followers joined the Socialist Party of America (the party which was founded by Eugene Debs back in the day). Shachtman and Harrington argued that the Socialist Party was so small that it should adopt a strategy of “realignment”: focusing its energy on joining and realigning the Democratic Party to the left, including voting for and otherwise supporting the Democratic presidential nominees. Since workers weren’t going to the socialists, they said, the socialists should go to the workers. Harrington thought the New Left arising on American campuses could be the beginning “not of a ‘third’ party of protest, but of a real, second party of the people,” and that the Democratic Party could be transformed to that end.[5]

Harrington became a leader of the youth wing of the Socialist Party, the Young People’s Socialist League (YPSL). Significantly, not long after Harrington’s realignment movement became influential, a young university student and civil rights activist named Bernie Sanders joined the Chicago chapter of YPSL.

A 21-year-old Bernie Sanders being arrested by the Chicago PD at a civil rights protest in 1963.
A 21-year-old Bernie Sanders being arrested by the Chicago PD at a civil rights protest in 1963

Disagreement over the realignment strategy contributed to several schisms of the Socialist Party of America in the early 1970s. Harrington resigned and founded the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) which endorsed the 1972 Democratic candidate George McGovern for president and continued to try to develop a socialist program within the Democratic Party. In 1982 DSOC joined with another democratic socialist group to become the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

DSA is still alive and, probably unsurprisingly, they are one of the very few socialists groups I’ve come across who have clearly endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. They are actively organizing grassroots support for Sanders through their #WeNeedBernie campaign.

I’m not sure if Sanders was directly or consciously influenced by the Shachtman-Harrington realignment caucus back in the '60s, but the movement he’s building around his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is perhaps the most successful expression to date of that strategy.

Anyway, back to what Sanders means by “democratic socialism.” In November 2015 he gave an hour-long speech at Georgetown University to elucidate his meaning. The whole speech including this bit toward the end exemplifies the confusing way he uses the term socialist to mean something very much like capitalist:

The next time you hear me attacked as a socialist — like tomorrow — remember this: I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families of this country who produce the wealth of this country deserve a decent standard of living and that their incomes should go up, not down. I do believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America.

For all of his talk about “socialism,” Sanders proposes no anti-capitalist positions (with the possible exception of his support of worker cooperatives, which is socialist in spirit even if not in the details).[6] He manages to identify working families as the creators of wealth (though without mention of the non-American families who create so much of our wealth), but he never questions the fundamental mechanisms by which that wealth ends up in the hands of employers and bankers. As the editors of Jacobin magazine summarized his speech, “In short, for Sanders, democratic socialism means New Deal liberalism” (“The Socialism of Bernie Sanders”).

There is a persistent and widespread misconception which holds that an essential element of socialism is either government control of business or/and it is government funding of services. When Sanders promotes the latter by contrasting it to the former, he manages to reinforce both misconceptions simultaneously. The effect of such a shallow understanding is that the popular definitions of socialism make almost no useful distinctions and socialism talk in America consists almost entirely of debating various forms of capitalist policy.

It is argued by some pragmatic bandwagoners that labels are unimportant and whether we call Sanders a democratic socialist or a social democrat it’s his message and the movement he is building which are important. Others tack the opposite way: they say the referent is unimportant and we should just be happy someone is finally talking about socialism seriously and positively on TV.

Both views show a rather severe under-appreciation for the importance of radical rhetoric. It is when making modest, mundane reforms that it is most important to keep long-term radical goals in mind; without linguistic reminders, projects will inevitably lose themselves to the prevailing ideology. Likewise, to obscure the radical meaning of socialism as Sanders has done is to cut loose those rhetorical anchors and risk losing any transformative potential of his program.

Untangling the various meanings and histories of socialism to detail its useful distinctions and critiques is beyond the scope of this article. But it is worth pointing out, contra Sanders, that some socialists (even those so wary of being mistaken for Bolsheviks that they insert the redundant “democratic” modifier everywhere) still think socialism is supposed to be radical and maybe a little bit scary. The main point of departure between socialists and other reformers is that socialists, historically, have tended to be, you know, anti-capitalist in their rhetoric and projects. That may seem obvious, but it is a point apparently lost on Sanders and many of his young “socialist” supporters. An idea of what it means to be (and to not be) anti-capitalist can be had by comparing the rhetoric of Sanders with that of his hero Debs:

  • Sanders talks about the “billionaire class” and the “middle class,” or about the “1%” and the “99%”. Debs talked about the “capitalist class” and the “working class”; about the “master class” and the “exploited class.” The class analysis of socialists like Debs has the advantage that it is based on a clearly defined relationship to production rather than on arbitrary levels of income. One points to the symptoms; the other both explains the symptoms and points to the disease.

  • Sanders talks about increasing wages for the middle class. Debs talked about wages as slavery and worked to abolish the wage system.

  • Sanders talks about protecting American jobs, wages, and profits even at the expense of the global poor. In one interview last year he described open borders as a “right-wing proposal” which “would make everybody in America poorer.”[7] Debs talked about a world-wide revolutionary movement and said “I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world.”

  • Sanders says the USA should be a leader, but not a unilateral actor except as a last resort, in military conflicts. Debs opposed all war and empire. In 1918 he delivered a speech against World War I for which he was arrested and sentenced to ten years in prison (of which he served three).

  • Sanders is seeking the nomination of one of the most powerful capitalist political parties in the history of the world. Debs founded independent parties to challenge the monopoly held by the Republican and Democratic parties of his time. While he was in prison in 1920 he ran for president as the Socialist Party candidate and received nearly a million votes (about 3.4% of the popular vote).

I know it is not fair to measure any electable socialist politician against Eugene Debs. Who could stand up to that? I don’t think I’ve heard Jeremy Corbyn or Kshama Sawant speak much about abolishing the wage system either. But such a comparison does hopefully cast light on why some socialists are nonplussed about Bernie Sanders. A masseur is no good when what one wants is a surgeon. Band-aids don’t fix bullet holes.

Neither Socialism Nor Barbarism: Making America Great Again (Again)

The graph below shows the share of all income which went to the richest 1% (blue) and 0.1% (red) of American families over a 100-year period from 1913 to 2013:

Note the relatively flat bit spanning about thirty years starting after World War II and continuing until around 1978 during which income inequality was at its lowest. The economist Fredrich Hayek referred to those years as the Great Prosperity. They were characterized by Keynesian-inspired welfare policies aimed at maximizing employment and a post-Fordist economy of domestic manufacturing with strong labour unions and high wages. An unprecedented number of workers (among men) made a “family” wage and could afford to buy many of the products they helped produce which spurred business and incentivized further domestic investment, jobs, and spending.

That is the America Bernie Sanders is nostalgic for. But even while the apparent health of that period (notwithstanding the millions of less-lucky American families who lived in poverty) was made possible by many concessions to the working class (Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society), those concessions comprised a temporary capitalist alternative to socialism, not its expression. It didn’t take long after the postwar world stabilized for the capitalist class to remove its restraints whenever convenient to return to a renewed, more profitable liberalism.

Obviously the current trend of high and rising inequality cannot be sustained indefinitely. If the capitalist state can’t get control of the capitalists under its charge, then everybody faces a future of economic and environmental ruin. In that sense members of the ruling class, who always have the most to lose, might be wise to feel the Bern. But it’s not clear that last century’s methods of saving capitalism would find success again.

The overall U-shape apparent in our graph above was made famous by French economist Thomas Piketty in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century. By looking at tax records in the United States, France, Germany, and several other countries, Piketty and his team found that the low-levels of wealth inequality during the Great Prosperity was a singular occurrence, an aberration from the normal path of capitalism on which returns from capital tend to outpace income from labour. (At the bottom of the last page of the copy of Piketty’s Capital I’m consulting, a previous library patron penciled this mini-review: “577 pages to say the rich get richer & the poor get poorer.”)

Piketty, who is himself a social democrat with “no interest in denouncing inequality or capitalism per se,”[8] presents a rather dismal outlook for the future of capitalism. The best try at regaining democratic control over the globalized financial capitalism of this century, he says, would be for nation-states and financial institutions dedicated to transparency to somehow work together to approximate a global progressive tax on capital. But as one reviewer for The Guardian responded to Piketty’s proposed restrictions on capital, “It is easier to imagine capitalism collapsing than the elite consenting to them.”[9] More generally, as a Marxist critic of Piketty pointed out, “Capitalism can dispense with democracy more easily than with profits.”[10]

The democratic socialist guise of Sanders' New Deal liberalism, then, is a regressive walk back toward an antiquated capitalist society which, in the light of Piketty’s data and the global nature of modern capitalism, may no longer even be within reach.

Socialists vs Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party

Of course American socialists don’t expect to be presented with an actual socialist who they can vote for as a viable candidate. But they do have hope that an independent social democrat is possible. Most of the criticism Sanders has received from the socialist press is directed at his strategic choices: specifically the efficacy of working with or within the Democratic Party rather than building an independent political movement to challenge the two capitalist parties.

Senator Sanders sitting in front of a chess board.
The senator plots his next move. Original photo by Charlie Enscoe (who retains copyrights).

A younger Sanders may have criticized himself on the same grounds. In his book about becoming a US Representative for Vermont he commented on the Labor Party slogan (“The bosses have two parties. We need one of our own”) with “Hard to argue with that.”[11] And here’s an excerpt from that video he wrote about Eugene Debs:

Every four years the Democratic and Republican parties come forward and tell the working people of this country all they’re going to do for them. How they’re going to end unemployment, raise wages, lower prices, and stop war. Gene Debs didn’t believe a word of it. He believed that the only way that workers could protect their own interests was to have a political party of their own: a socialist party.

Socialists who are not optimistic about expending their efforts on the electoral politics of a capitalist party see the Sanders campaign as little more than a mechanism to “sheepdog” potential leftists, attracting them to and keeping them within the Democratic Party where any potential for radical change will be dissipated or even redirected toward strengthening the established order. I don’t know who first coined the phrase, but the ability of the Democratic Party to attract and neutralize radical movements has earned it the reputation among activists as being “the graveyard of social movements.”

A perusal of the American socialist press provides many examples of this sentiment. Ashley Smith articulated this position in an article for Socialist Worker, stating that “Like many leftists before him, the Democratic Party has co-opted and changed Bernie Sanders, using him to help hinder the development of a genuine alternative to the capitalist parties” (“The problem with Bernie Sanders,” 5 May 2015). Again, in “A socialist FAQ on Bernie Sanders and the left” (27 May 2015), the Socialist Worker unfavorably contrasts the Sanders campaign to the independent presidential runs of Ralph Nader, stating that “The biggest problem is Sanders' relationship to the Democratic Party. It poses as the ‘party of the people,’ but it is, in fact, a capitalist party, funded and controlled by Corporate America and the political elite.”

More recently the International Socialist Organization (the Marxist group which publishes Socialist Worker) reiterated its non-support for Sanders because he is running for the Democratic Party which amounts to “accommodation with the structures of American capitalism and its state,” and which “means hoping to find common ground with a system that is not only built on the ruthless exploitation of all working-class people, but also relies on institutional racism at home and permanent war abroad” (“Is Sanders making a "political revolution"?” by Todd Chretien, Socialist Worker, 3 Septermber 2015).

The World Socialist Web Site (WSWS, the publication of a rather sectarian Trotskyist group) continues to publish some of the harshest criticisms of the Sanders campaign. As an example of a recent analysis, Barry Grey concluded that Sanders' “central political function is to prevent the emergence of an independent political movement of the working class by channeling social discontent back behind the Democratic Party” (“Once again on Sanders and socialism,” 20 February 2016).

Chris Hedges, whose liberal audience is more main stream than those who typically read the likes of Socialist Worker, wrote an impassioned plea against Sanders' engagement with the Democratic Party and for a “truly socialist” revolution “in the streets, not in a convention hall. Convention halls are where the left goes to die.” He warned Sanders supporters that “No movement or political revolution will ever be built within the confines of the Democratic Party,” and predicted that “His mobilized base, as was true with the Obama campaign, will be fossilized into donor and volunteer lists. […​] The political system, as many Sanders supporters are about to discover, is immune to reform” (“Bernie Sanders’ Phantom Movement,” Truthdig, 14 February 2016).

Even socialist groups and commentators who are overall very excited about the Sanders campaign recognize the dangers of getting involved with the Democratic Party.

For example, Jacobin magazine’s founder and editor, Bhaskar Sunkara, wrote a very-cautiously optimistic piece welcoming Sanders' challenge to Hillary Clinton (“Bernie for President?” May 2015): “Having Sanders openly defend socialism, and contest the New Democrat record before a national audience, is a baby step in the right direction.” Sunkara’s expressed hope is that leftist supporters of Sanders will be able to avoid the dead-ends his party offers and instead “transcend the Democratic Party entirely” because the resulting movement “could begin to legitimate the word ‘socialist,’ and spark a conversation around it, even if Sanders’s welfare-state socialism doesn’t go far enough.”

Socialist Alternative — a recently popular (especially their ‘Fight for 15’ minimum wage campaign) Trotskyist group whose website states that “the Republicans and Democrats are both parties of big business, and we are campaigning to build an independent, alternative party of workers” — tried to hitch a ride on the Bernie train early on and has been enthusiastic in its support for the reforms and rhetoric of Bernie Sanders. But it has also been consistent in its warnings that the movement must not get trapped in the Democratic Party. “We need to use the momentum of Sanders' campaign to build a new kind of political organization, independent of corporate cash, in opposition to right-wing Republicans, but also independent from the Wall Street-dominated Democratic Party” (“Sawant Gives Socialist Welcome to Bernie Sanders”, 3 August 2015).

Likewise Solidarity, a small independent socialist organization, released a statement in which they expressed hope to connect with the Bernie movement while accusing the Democratic Party of being “unreformable, committed to imposing capital’s neoliberal project,” and that they “strongly disagree with Bernie Sanders’ approach of running in the Democratic primary and his pledge to support the party nominee” (“On Bernie Sanders' Campaign,” December 2015). And earlier this month the Solidarity Steering Committee warned that “the energy [Sanders has] captured is all too likely to dissipate in disillusionment and frustration […​] unless the movement finds a means of continuing and expressing itself independently from the Democratic Party” (“After Iowa and New Hampshire: A Political Revolution Underway?” 11 February 2016, emphasis in original).

It is true, however, that some socialists, recognizing that no such viable independent party seems forthcoming and that the Democratic Party is the more amenable of the two existing parties to progressive social reform, agree with the Harrington realignment strategy of trying to make use of the Democratic Party as a tool to make room for radical change. These reform-optimistic socialists view the Sanders campaign as the beginning of a meaningful mass movement, the awakening of the Democratic Party’s left wing, a step in the correct direction, or at least as a hopeful sign that “socialist” is losing its stigma.

After criticizing Sanders for lacking a socialist class analysis and calling his foreign policy a “complete disappointment,” for example, a Jacobin article concludes that these problematic positions are “only a more urgent reason to become involved in the Sanders campaign and criticize it from the inside, as supporters” (“A Progressive or a Radical?” by Mike Davis, October 2015).

As the primaries began in 2016 and Sanders proved his electability by remaining neck-and-neck with Clinton in polls, the tone of the socialist press predictably became less concerned with Sanders' inevitable loss and subsequent endorsement of Clinton (which no longer seems nearly as inevitable as it did six months ago), and it has become more concerned with defending Sanders against Clinton and the mainstream Democratic Party.

Several such articles appeared in Jacobin in January and February. In “The War on Bernie Sanders,” Matt Karp claims Sanders has proved “that it is possible for an avowed socialist to participate successfully in national politics without altering his identity or renouncing his convictions.” In “Bernie and His Critics,” Nivedita Majumdar dismisses criticisms from the left — such as “Bernie is just a social democrat. He is not advocating socializing the means of production, nor is he seeking to dismantle the American empire” (in other words, the basic socialist positions) — as “unexceptional.” She concludes that it doesn’t matter what Sanders' positions are because “It’s about the political moment the campaign has created and its possibilities.”

To coincide with the beginning of primary season, Socialist Alternative has launched a pro-Sanders #Movement4Bernie initiative to draw leftists to the Bernie movement and defend the Sanders campaign against the Democratic establishment.

Even if Sanders continues to match Clinton in elected delegates, the Democratic Party still has a weapon of last resort against populist candidates: the so-called superdelegates who are unelected, tend to support establishment candidates (one recent survey found 63% favor Clinton), and make up 20% of total delegates sent to the Democratic National Convention. If Sanders fails to keep up in the polls in the coming weeks, I expect the socialist dialog will center again on trying to leverage the interest he has generated in socialism while lamenting anew his choice of party.

Post Mortem (February 2017)

Throughout the 2016 primary season, Sanders' results at the polls and the amount of national attention he brought to the issue of wealth inequality continued to exceed my expectations. Although it wasn’t enough to beat the superior organization and name-recognition of his opponent, his primary run alone was one of the most successful attempts to energize a latent left wing of the Democratic Party. At the Democratic National Convention in July, Hillary Clinton was nominated as the Democratic Party’s candidate, no superdelegates required. Bernie received less than 40% of delegate votes (and about 43% of the popular vote). The gory details can be found in the Wikipedia entry for Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016.

The one factor I completely underestimated was the stunning rise of Donald Trump. When I wrote this article a year ago I thought his campaign for the Republican nomination was a joke, much more so the idea that anybody could lose to him during a general election. Trump’s surprise Republican nomination had something of a simultaneously accelerating and abortive effect on the usual dynamics between the Democratic Party and the grassroots movement it sought to absorb as both the party and its discontents turned their focus to Trump.

Jill Stein offered to give Sanders the Green Party nomination so that he could continue his movement into the general election as a popular third-party candidate. But on July 12, Sanders followed through on his promise to endorse Hillary Clinton. Then in September, against the threat of a Trump victory, he asked his supporters to reconsider casting a third-party protest vote. Of course, when Hillary did manage to lose to Trump, many Democrats did what Democrats do: they found the most reasonable politician around and blamed him for their failures. After the election, TIME published an editorial titled “And the 2016 Ralph Nader Award Goes to…​ Bernie Sanders.”

At the end of August, as disappointed Sanders supporters were trying to decide whether a vote for Hillary or a potentially-spoiling vote for a third-party was the greater evil, Socialist Worker asked several leftist activists to comment on the aftermath of the Sanders campaign. Author Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor provided the requisite leftist insight that what we need to do is “build movements.” Bhaskar Sunkara thought the best use of the residual Bernie energy was to “organize independent political challenges at the local level, because we can actually, in many places, run viable, competitive campaigns for the City Council or for state Senate, and challenge the Democrats there.” ISO member Jen Roesch thought that because a “socialist” came close to winning the Democratic nomination there is hope for mass movements to develop “outside the electoral arena” (but that we should also vote Jill Stein, just in case). Green Party gubernatorial candidate Howie Hawkins warned that “the Democratic Party will be a graveyard for Sanders' demands” and so supporting the Green Party is the next step for those who want to continue the “political revoultion” started by Sanders. (“Beyond Bernie: What’s next for the left?” August 2016)

In the end, it is Bernie himself who has chosen the alley in the dead-end of electoral politics where his movement will be buried. On August 24, 2016, he launched a non-profit organization called Our Revolution which “will give the people a major voice in the political system by activating supporters,” “empower the next generation of progressive leaders by inspiring and recruiting progressive candidates to run for offices,” and “educate the public about the most pressing issues confronting our nation.” It will do all of that with the help of ten full-time staffers — it would have been more, but as Our Revolution was preparing to launch, over half of the staff quit in protest over concerns about leadership and lack of diversity. It’s plain to see that both words in his organization’s name are meaningless. The process Chris Hedges predicted exactly a year ago about the bones of Sanders' movement being “fossilized into donor and volunteer lists” is well under way.

Further Reading

  • Michael Harrington died of esophageal cancer in 1989, but not before he completed his final contribution to socialist thought. Socialism: Past and Future is still readable as a clear history and explanation of socialism (from a macro-economic or political view). The hopes he expresses in Socialism for a “visionary gradualism” represent one of the most articulate cases for democratic socialism that I know of.

  • Sam Gindin’s “Building a Mass Socialist Party” (Jacobin, December 2016) read to me as both an accurate assessment of the Sanders campaign and one of the more practical looks at the possibility of a future socialist movement in the USA and Canada.

  • Tom Hall and Barry Grey’s “Is Bernie Sanders a socialist?” (WSWS, 16 July 2015) contrasts Sanders' politics with several principles of socialism. As a comprehensive socialist rejection of Sanders, it is the most concise that I’ve seen.

  • In “Bernie Sanders Is Not A Socialist,” (Odyssey, 8 December 2015) Brett Heinz recounts some more history of social democracy to contextualize Bernie Sanders' positions.

  • For something more positive about both Sanders and his choice to run as a Democrat I recommend Eric Lee’s “The Sanders Revolution” (and the other pro-Sanders articles on his weblog).

1. Bernard Sanders and Huck Gutman, Outsider in the House (Verso, 1997), 15
2. Sanders, Outsider in the House, 22-23
3. Sanders, Outsider in the House, 72-73
4. Sanders, Outsider in the House, 22
5. Maurice Isserman, The other American: the life of Michael Harrington (PublicAffairs, 2001), 169
7. Ezra Klein, “Bernie Sanders: The Vox Conversation,” Vox, July 28, 2015.
8. Thomas Piketty, Capital in the twenty-first century, Harvard University Press (2014), 31
9. Paul Mason, “Thomas Piketty’s Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller,” The Guardian, 28 April 2014
10. Benjamin Kunkel, “Paupers and richlings,” London Review of Books 36, no. 13 (2014): 17-20.
11. Sanders, Outsider in the House, 27

Dyer Lum on the Civil and Mormon Wars

“the Reconstruction experiment in racial democracy failed because it began at the wrong end, emphasizing political means and civil rights acts rather than economic means and self-determination.”
— Booker T. Washington
“Where then is the remedy? Politics offers none. Our political state is based on the present economic condition of things.”
— Dyer Lum

Civil War

Slavery is not very conducive to capitalism. Slave ownership is a large and fixed investment which is unsuitable to quickly changing industrial markets. During economic downturns it is less expensive to fire a worker than to sell a slave. And as industry expands, even the slave-owning agricultural sectors of an economy begin to conflict with the interests of capitalists. Slave owners hold a substantial portion of the labour force off of the labour market reducing competition for jobs and forcing capitalists to pay higher wages than would be the case if slaves' labour power were available on the market. What capitalists want is as much unemployed but available labour at their disposal as possible (without causing riots) — that, and labourers who are responsible for housing and feeding themselves.

That is why at the rise of capitalism in Europe serfdom was abolished, the commons were enclosed to force the peasants off of their land (and their means of subsistence), and finally harsh vagrancy laws and forced-labour workhouses were established to coerce the first wage workers into the factories. And that is why, in the United States during the 19th century, the capitalist North increasingly came into conflict with the slave-owning South. Capitalists eventually waged a war which crushed the South’s economy and made the slaves' labour power available to the labour market as free workers.

Dyer D. Lum
Dyer D. Lum

One of the early writers to give such an economic theory of the forces which lead to the American Civil War was Dyer Lum (1839 – 1893) who became an influential anarchist and labor activist toward the end of the 19th-century. Writing in 1886 he said of the capitalist North and the agrarian-slavery South, “They were rival industrial systems which had met in the same path, and one must give way. The war followed.”[1] Lum, eager to do his part in ending slavery, volunteered for and served the Union forces for three years. But upon observing the way the South was re-integrated into the union after the war in terms favorable to speculators, military contractors, and monopolists, he had second thoughts about the ultimate purpose of the war.

To-day, South and North alike admit the fundamental principle of our industrial system, the corner stone of our economic structure: Free labor is cheaper than slave labor! Employers without responsibilities could find new fields for enterprise when the system which entailed responsibilities was once removed. The South are converted; the poverty of a factory population is no longer an Eastern peculiarity. The gray meets blue in hearty union to draw dividends and cut coupons. They have found free labor the cheapest. (88)

Mormon Wars

Just as the Civil War had brought the South into alignment with the capitalist system of wage labour, Lum saw the Federal repression of the Mormons in Utah as an attempt to undo the cooperative-based economy the Mormons had established in order to expose them to the exploitation of the industrial East. It was for the expansion of capitalism, Lum wrote, “that the cry has gone forth that the Mormon must go!”

Lum, who traveled to Utah as part of a congressional committee on labor issues, had a very high regard for Mormon society. In one of his booklets he wrote, “The whole Mormon system, social, religious, industrial, is essentially based on two fundamental principles: cooperation in business and arbitration in disputes” (which he contrasted to the mainstream American values of capitalism and civil litigation).[2] He was so enamored with their cooperative businesses that he viewed Utah as perhaps the most successful socialist country anywhere: “The living question of the present is that stated in the preamble of the constitution of the Knights of Labor as ‘the abolishment of the wage system,’ a problem the Mormon alone has solved.” (86)

Lum was writing at a time when the United States government was taking advantage of American bigotry toward Mormons and polygamy in order to pass legislation aimed at dismantling the Mormon society. The Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 disenfranchised Mormons and put many of their leaders in jail while the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 disincorporated the LDS Church, seized its property, and replaced Utah judges with federally-appointed judges.

But the war against Mormons began before the Civil War. In the 1830s, not long after Joseph Smith founded his church, Mormons began settling in Missouri. They did not find many friends among their new neighbors. Not only were the Mormon immigrants vocally against slavery (in a slave-holding state), but they voted. At one polling place in 1838, around 200 non-Mormon Missourians gathered to prevent Mormons from voting. The Mormons asserted their rights, and a brawl broke out. The skirmish at the polls was the first violence in a series of minor armed conflicts and raids that took place between Mormons and Missourians known as the 1838 Mormon War.

On October 27, 1838, the governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs, issued Executive Order 44, which has become known as the Extermination Order. The order read in part:

The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace—​their outrages are beyond all description.
— From Boggs' Extermination Order

The Mormons (around 10,000 of them) were expelled from Missouri and found refuge in Illinois (and then eventually in the Utah Territory). While they were chased out of Missouri for threatening the slave economy there, they were also nearly chased out of Utah for threatening the expansion of capitalism.

In 1857-1858, President James Buchanan sent thousands of US troops to invade the Utah Territory in what has been called the Mormon War. The Nauvoo Legion, the Mormon’s militia, activated and held the Federal troops at the border (in what is now Wyoming) where both armies made winter camp.

Of course the Mormons knew that if the Federal troops were intent on entering Utah, they could not be held off for long. Brigham Young wanted to avoid any open fighting if possible. So in March of 1858 he began executing an evacuation plan. In northern Utah (including Salt Lake City), Mormons buried the foundation of the temple they were constructing, put kindling to their buildings, and as many as 30,000 fled southward leaving only enough men behind to set fire to everything in case the Army entered the territory.

When it became clear that the Mormons would rather burn their territory than give up their mode of living, a peace accord was reached with the federal government. The terms of the agreement allowed the Mormons to return to their homes and continue living unmolested, and in return Young was replaced as governor of the territory and the Army was allowed to enter and maintain a remote fort. Federal troops remained in Utah until they were withdrawn to fight the Civil War in 1862.

But against the renewed persecution of the 1880s, of which Lum and other American anarchists wrote, the Mormons were not as victorious. In 1890 the LDS Church capitulated and renounced polygamy; in 1896 Utah joined the Union as the 45th state and became increasingly integrated into the capitalist economy. The hierarchical structure of the Church fit well with capitalism and became a weapon against the more democratic elements of its priesthood.

The church today owns significant for-profit (non-cooperative) property, including businesses which employ church members (who also pay tithes). Some of the profits from church investments pay the salaries of the General Authorities (high-ranking leaders) who are themselves often property owners, executives, and/or well-paid professionals before accepting the church position. Meanwhile the rank-and-file members and third-world converts must work for a living. The church still inculcates mutual aid and relief societies (it is rare to find a truly destitute Mormon), but nobody today would mistake Utah for a great socialist country. In that sense it can be said that the Mormon War was eventually successful in defeating Mormonism.

The War on Fundamentalist Mormonism

I agree with Lum that the 19th-century Mormon economy in Utah was a barrier to Eastern capitalism, but I think Lum’s account is overly optimistic, especially his claim that the Mormon cooperatives had managed to abolish wage labour. With the advantage of having the entire 20th century in hindsight, I’d say the Mormon social experiment — which sought not the abolition of capital but the cooperation between the owning and working classes (including state ownership of some enterprises), strove for economic self-sufficiency, looked to a single almost supreme prophet for guidance, believed it was restoring ancient order to a decadent society, and cultivated a strong identity as a unified people in the face of external threats — shared some features of the Fascist movements which later arose out of radical unions in Europe.

Of course the LDS Church is also built on principles which would be impossible to reconcile with anything like Fascism, especially its cosmopolitan missionary program by which the church since its inception has made friends and converts from nations and in countries all over the planet. But suppose the church stopped proselytizing: what would an insular Mormon church look like, especially if its authoritarian elements were emphasized? We don’t have to imagine. The American West is dotted by isolated fundamentalist Mormon communities which split with (or were excommunicated by) the LDS Church beginning in the first years of the 20th century and have refused to this day to integrate into the mainstream society or economy. The largest organized group of fundamentalist Mormons is the “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” (FLDS) which is infamously characterized by authoritarian rulers, revered (or at least accepted) as prophets, who sexually abuse and economically exploit their subjects.[3]

Governments have used the crimes of those leaders to punish and attempt to dissolve FLDS communes in order to integrate members into society at large as taxable worker-shoppers. A series of raids culminating in a large 1953 action against the town of Short Creek (which is today the twin towns of Colorado City and Hildale) carried out by Arizona state troopers and national guardsmen resulted in the arrest of 400 Mormon men, women, and children. Some children were never reunited with their families, and the fact that most of the families were allowed to return home was only because of the immense nation-wide public outrage at the raid and the way it was carried out.

Again in 2008, acting on a false report of sexual abuse made via telephone by a non-Mormon woman in a different state, militarized police raided an FLDS compound in Texas. The police removed 462 children under the age of 18 and placed them in protective custody. The children were kept in custody for a month until an appeals court ordered that they be returned to their families. In 2012 the state of Texas initiated legal forfeiture and seizure proceedings against the ranch, a move reminiscent of the old Edmunds–Tucker Act, and in 2014 the State took physical possession of the property.

While fundamentalist Mormonism is not nearly as sympathetic as the Mormon society Dyer Lum knew and described, the retreat fundamentalist Mormons have made to insular authoritarianism is a direct result of the 19th-century campaign of state repression, a campaign which continues today.

Further Reading

Mormon Anarchism - Some Links is a list I maintain of links to Web resources pertaining to Mormon anarchism.

Arrington, Leonard J. Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-Day Saints, 1830-1900. New edition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004.

McCormick, John S. “An Anarchist Defends the Mormons: The Case of Dyer D. Lum.” Utah Historical Quarterly 44 (1976): 156-69.

Rockman, Seth. “The Future of Civil War Era Studies: Slavery and Capitalism.” A survey of works exploring the relationship between slavery and capitalism leading up to the Civil War from the Journal of the Civil War Era.

1. Lum, Social problems of today, 87. All subsequent parenthetical page numbers refer to this work.
3. In 2007, Anne Wilde estimated the FLDS membership to include 8,000 people, which accounts for less than a quarter of all fundamentalist Mormons (most of whom are not affiliated with an organized group). See Anne Wilde, “Fundamentalist Mormonism: Its History, Diversity, and Stereotypes, 1886-Present,” Scattering of the saints: Schism within Mormonism (2007): 258-89.

On Camels, Liberal Myths, and Ferguson

“In a world that really has been turned on its head, truth is a moment of falsehood.”
— Guy Debord
The Society of the Spectacle

Background: The Killing of Michael Brown

As far as I know, none of the following facts are disputed. On August 9, 2014, Officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson City Police Department confronted Michael Brown, 18, and his friend[1] Dorian Johnson, 22, from his vehicle because they were walking in the middle of a residential street. The officer ordered them to move to the sidewalk. Instead of simply complying, Brown argued with the officer through the window of the police SUV. A scuffle ensued, Brown, who was unarmed, hit Wilson in the face with his hand, and according to Wilson’s testimony, made a grab for the officer’s firearm. In response, Wilson fired 2 shots at Brown who ran down the street for about 150 feet before turning around to face the officer (several witnesses reported he had turned around in surrender). Meanwhile Wilson had exited his vehicle and pursued on foot, firing at least 10 more times. Less than 90 seconds after initially contacting the jaywalker, Wilson had hit Brown with at least 6 bullets, including a fatal shot to his head.[2]

A grand jury was convened after the shooting, and it found the evidence to be insufficient to provide probable cause for bringing criminal charges against officer Wilson. He was never arrested in connection with the killing.

Both the shooting and the grand jury decision have been met with significant social unrest in Ferguson and in cities around the country including protest marches, riots, looting, and destruction of retail storefront property.

The sentiment behind some of the protesters' demands for “justice for Mike Brown” and the bewildered response of spectating Americans trying to make sense of why the black residents of Ferguson (sometimes shortened to “thugs” for convenience) would destroy “their own” neighborhoods both reveal something of the mystified nature of capitalism and the myths which sustain it.

Myths the Size of Camels

Some Marxists use Engels' term ‘false consciousness’ to describe beliefs about the world which obfuscate its actual workings and mislead people into accepting the current social structures as “natural” or even inevitable. And it was Karl Marx, an often unemployed theorist living under industrial capitalism, who taught us the importance of the economic basis to understanding the nature, ends, and ideologies of the dominate political structures in all times and places. But it was Jesus of Nazareth, a propertyless Jewish peasant subsisting under imperial Rome, who taught us how to see and see through the moral judgments which flow from such false consciousness, a morality which serves to protect and create the exploiting classes.

Among the sayings of Jesus which have been preserved, there are a handful of colorful and memorable quips employing exaggerated contrasts to illustrate the hypocritical judgments made by the dominant political and religious ideologies and leaders of his time. One of the most famous is his rhetorical question to those who fixate on the speck of sawdust in their brother’s eye, but don’t even notice the log sticking out of their own eye.[3] Another is, “You blind leaders! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!”[4]

What Jesus' sayings help to reveal, although it is counterintuitive, is that the most successful and stubborn ideas which make up a false consciousness do not operate on subtle misconceptions or minor deceptions. They are always complete reversals resulting in total hypocrisies.

Jesus' cynicism can be applied generally to see how the hypocrisy is borne out today (and a few specific examples of such reversals from Ferguson will be demonstrated in the next sections). Every stable mode of production has its own obfuscating myths which are accepted by a sufficient number of both the exploiting and exploited classes to maintain widespread complacency. And so in liberalism we can expect to find those myths which hide the horrors of capitalism from the citizens of republics:

Private Property, a ruthless process and legal institution which deprives millions of property, requiring armies of police and soldiers to maintain, is seen as a provider of prosperity and stability. The Rule of Law, which so impartially allows the rich and the starving poor to depend on the purchase of commodities for survival, is seen as an egalitarian force. Above all Progressivism — by which the current social organization is seen to be fundamentally good and always improving through the democratic mechanisms of elections, petition, and scientific enlightenment — condemns as criminal any attempt by the oppressed to assert their dignity or make actual improvements to their conditions.

‘Justice for Mike Brown’

Returning to the death of Michael Brown: arming oneself then confronting, fighting with, pursuing, and finally shooting to death an unarmed young man is behavior which should require significant extenuating circumstances to excuse. Even if Wilson were not a police officer, his actions would likely warrant a criminal trial to determine the facts more fully. But Wilson is a police officer who has been entrusted by the public (whom he is ostensibly protecting) with weapons, training, and legal authority. If anything, while acknowledging his work will tend to place him into conflicts, he should be held to a higher standard of behavior and legal culpability than an ordinary citizen in handling those confrontations. Instead, in accordance with the law, he has been granted extra leniency and the case against him will not even be examined in open court.

Given all of that, and not even considering pre-existing systemic injustices or the patterns of police abuse, it is plain why there is such widespread belief that an injustice was committed against Michael Brown. ‘Justice for Mike Brown’ has become a slogan for protests, and is taken as a demand by journalists looking to provide a motive for protesters. But what would such ‘justice’ look like? All too often the slogan is simply a demand that Darren Wilson be more fully subjected to the same criminal justice system which produced him. In such cases it is actually a demand of ‘justice for Darren Wilson’.

It’s a demand that reveals two divergent but both conservative reactions. The first, the ‘peaceful protesters,’ believe the justice system provides its own adequate channels of reform and view protest, insofar as it is legal or at least peaceful, as legitimate democratic petition of the government. The second, sharing the logic of a lynch mob, believes itself to be an extralegal corrective to a justice system gone so far astray that its own means of reform are no longer effective. Both accept at face value the necessity of the justice system as it promises to function.

On one of the riotous nights following the grand jury decision, CNN described a crowd of protesters who overturned and burned a police cruiser and then chanted across the street toward the lines of riot police and national guardsmen, “We are not your enemy. We just want justice.”[5] The demand for justice, referring to criminal justice, shows how fully even some of the vandalizing protesters in Ferguson have internalized the liberal myths which legitimate capitalism and its political superstructures. Except to the grieving friends and family of Michael Brown who can’t be blamed for seeking whatever peace and closure they can find from a legal system which purports to provide it, the question of justice in the case of Darren Wilson is a symptom, a speck of dust, a gnat. Yet the Ferguson community leaders and many protesters strain at him while swallowing the murderous political system they believe can bring them justice.

Vandalism, even in the cause of liberalism, is clearly seen as a threat to the authorities and the image of control they’d like to maintain (hence the frenzied calls for peace among political leaders at all levels). But the split between the strictly peaceful and the extra-legal protesters also provides an opportunity to control the scope of debate during times of social unrest. For example, note what the highest ranking office of liberalism in the world has to say about rioting. During the 1992 LA Riots, President Bush acknowledged that while Americans have reason to be frustrated with the law, they should not actually unleash those frustrations on the legal system itself:

“In this highly controversial court case, a verdict was handed down by a California jury. To Americans of all races who were shocked by the verdict, let me say this: You must understand that our system of justice provides for the peaceful, orderly means of addressing this frustration. We must respect the process of law whether or not we agree with the outcome. There’s a difference between frustration with the law and direct assaults upon our legal system.” [6]
— George Bush

Similarly, president Obama in his address to the nation after the Ferguson grand jury decision pleaded for frustrations to be channeled “constructively”:

“First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make. […​] But what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren’t just making these problems up. […​] What we need to do is to understand them and figure out how do we make more progress. […​] That won’t be done by throwing bottles. That won’t be done by smashing car windows. […​] So, to those in Ferguson, there are ways of channeling your concerns constructively and there are ways of channeling your concerns destructively.”[7]
— Barack Obama

Riots provide several benefits for the working class at the expense of the owning class. As such, there is an ideological benefit in dissuading those who can be persuaded by liberalism from rioting. The liberal kit outlined by Obama — foundation on a Rule of Law, Progress, the sanctity of Property, and proper Democratic channels — is so ingrained in the minds of Americans that such appeals may work at an almost instinctive level. But even if they are ineffective in that, appeals to the law serve at least two important roles in maintaining order:

  1. By constantly making a distinction between lawful and non-lawful protest, the debate becomes centered on the morality and efficacy of extralegal reform. This has the effect of pushing radical change to the periphery, and completely out of view of most protesters and spectators.

  2. By creating a sense of urgency in maintaining peaceful protests, politicians can induce protesters to police each other.

A darker theoretical speculation can be drawn about the role of murderous policing itself, including the double-standard seen in the indictment process. By deviating so obviously from the promise of justice the system purports, prosecutors and police have succeeded in prompting people to take to the streets in support of the criminal justice system. How convenient for the propertied classes!

Why Are They Looting Their Own Neighborhoods?

Meanwhile, much of the American populace suffers from a similar but different aspect of the liberal mystification. They read the reports of looting and see the pictures on TV of shops on fire, and they just can’t seem to figure out why those black people would destroy “their own” neighborhoods. As if the shopping centers in any American neighborhood, much less a black neighborhood, are collectively-owned cooperatives or in any way belong to the community rather than to petite bourgeois owners.

These Americans are so ensconced in liberal mythology that they are utterly unable to make sense of the world that confronts them on their cable news programs every night. It seems perfectly natural to think of people — especially the dark skinned and uneducated — as commodities who should spend their lives working and obeying (or begging and obeying), but any disruption of peace and order is a startling transgression. ‘Peace and order’ is paramount; it implies the ability to peaceably and orderly employ, tax, fine, and blame the poor…​ in Ferguson and everywhere.

As it is with gnats and camels, so it is with looting and capital. Businesses have stolen more from the working class — and most extensively from the black working class — than any practical amount of looting could ever recover. Yet the political leaders, news journalists, and the average American worker will strain all of their moral indignation at the tiny acts of re-appropriation like when a looter makes off with food or a television, but will swallow without question the entire impoverishing, alienating system of wage work which leaves so many with so little.

The wealth of the United States of America, from a British colony to an imperialist superpower, is the result of over four centuries of indentured servitude, chattel slavery, genocide, debt peonage, subjugation of women, plundering wars, and a system of wage labour which has no end in sight, all legally sanctioned and enforced by the established police forces. And what Americans cannot understand, the thing that is beyond acceptance, is when a liquor store is looted.

The Virtue of Rioting

Of course not all events that occur during times of rebellion are necessarily good. There is nothing useful or dignifying in opportunistic violence against individuals or theft of personal property committed under cover of social unrest, and such acts are properly crimes. It is also important to recognize that spontaneous uprisings like Ferguson are not organized revolutions in which targets are prioritized, goods are seized and distributed according to need, and capital is taken over to be run collectively — or whatever revolution might look like.

As much as some of us may wish to see such activity, and while some spontaneous rebellions have historically lead to more directed revolutionary efforts, it is not even possible without more preparations than currently exist. The national guard in Missouri is happy to guard only the highest value centers of capital during a couple of nights of light looting of consumer goods. But if any protesters had attempted to actually take control of and operate their own workplaces, it would have been SWAT raids, live rounds, and whatever carnage was deemed necessary to return property to its lawfully exploiting owners.

But why loot and riot at all? Earlier in this essay I claimed that riots provide benefits to the working class. What are they? Most obvious is the material benefits inherent in the act of looting. In addition to material gain, looting brings a flavour of what a post-capitalist economy will feel like. On every other day of their life, a looter’s needs rule over them in the form of money and commodities. For a few brief days during a riot, commodities are subordinated to the form of mere goods which satisfy needs.

Secondly, riots are helpful because riots win political concessions. They signal to the ruling class that it is squeezing a tad tightly and needs to let up in order to keep its grip. The unrest in Ferguson has directly prompted the federal government to begin investigating the Ferguson Police Department for possible civil rights abuses,[8] and President Obama has asked congress for $75 million to fund 50,000 body cameras to help reduce murder and other abuse by America’s police officers.[9] Other reforms may follow, none of which would have happened if protesters in Ferguson and elsewhere had not forced the issue.

But most importantly, riots and the reactions to riots reveal the hypocrisy Jesus saw so clearly. The public judgment of rioters lays bare the false morality of the dominate ideology. Covert domination — including economic exploitation and racism — can be swallowed and transmitted to new generations without being noticed. But overt domination is noticed and generates its own resistance. It is when domination is exposed and individuals are freed of their false consciousness that Jesus' “kingdom of heaven,” the Wobblies' “new world in the shell of the old,” and the Marxist’s “whithering away” of classes is possible. There are Christians who don’t understand a word of what Jesus said, but who nevertheless believe with all of their strength that his words have the power to save their souls. I don’t think they are wrong.

Further Reading

Roughly in order of relevance:

“In Defense of Looting” by Willie Osterweil is an eloquent defense of looting in the context of the Ferguson riots.

“The Nature of Police, the Role of the Left” and “Learning From Ferguson” by Peter Gelderloos look at the liberal mechanisms (including the narrative that ‘non-violence works’) used to relegate the efforts following police violence to superficial reforms.

“The Decline and Fall of the Spectacle-Commodity Economy” by Guy Debord is an insightful analysis of the Watts Rebellion of 1965.

“False Consciousness or Laying it on Thick?” is the fourth chapter of James C. Scott’s Domination and the Arts of Resistance which, like much of his work, explores the operation of hegemonic ideology and the degree to which it is accepted or merely tolerated by subordinate groups.

“You Are Not The Target Audience” by Wiliam Gillis is an apology for the black bloc tactic of smashing windows.

“From Gulf War to Class War: We All Hate the Cops” by Max Anger is an optimistic (probably overly so) summary of the 1992 LA Riots.

“Ferguson, Missouri: Rioting is a Virtue” by Zak Brown is commentary on Ferguson by an American Maoist.

1. Wesley Lowery and Darryl Fears, “Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson, the friend who witnessed his shooting,” The Washington Post, August 31, 2014.
2. Robert Patrick, “Darren Wilson’s radio calls show fatal encounter was brief,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 14, 2014.
4. Matthew 23:24. It is sometimes suggested that the saying in Aramaic, the language Jesus probably spoke, would have involved more word play as the Aramaic word for “camel” is gamla and the Aramaic for “louse” (which could have been adapted to greek as “konopa” meaning gnat) is glama. A louse is smaller than a gnat, making for an even greater contrast in imagery.
5. Moni Basu and Faith Karimi, “Protesters torch police car in another tense night in Ferguson,” CNN, November 25, 2014.
8. Sari Horwitz, Carol D. Leonnig and Kimberly Kindy, ‘Justice Dept. to probe Ferguson police forc,` The Washington Post, September 3, 2014.


Recent Features

  1. A Look At Bernie Sanders' Electoral Socialism

  2. Dyer Lum on the Civil and Mormon Wars

  3. On Camels, Liberal Myths, and Ferguson

  4. Loving v. Utah and Mormonism's Embarrassing Saga of Marital Policy

  5. When Police Kill the Homeless

  6. Why I Don't Vote

  7. Transcript of Dateline NBC's Exposé of Gabriel of Sedona

  8. Jesus on [Same-Sex] Marriage

  9. Biased Belief: Why the Mormon Missionaries Haven't Converted Me Yet

  10. Hats for the Homeless Crochet Pattern and Notes