We’re writing to ask you to join us at a public meeting to discuss the broad topic of “Building a Radical Left in the Age of Trump.” The meeting will be held in New York City in late January or early February. We’ll confirm a date as soon as our inquiries regarding a possible site are answered.
We are calling this meeting because, along with many others, we realize that we are entering a time of great uncertainties and great dangers—dangers that result from what the government does here and abroad and dangers that result from the emergence of a variety of new right-wing populist and nationalist forces that can only be understood as pre-fascist or fascist. At the same time, we insist that the great majority of Trump supporters cannot and should not be tarred with such a brush. Indeed, as we wrote in our most recent editorial, “There are people in the Hillary camp who are our enemies, and there are people in the Trump camp who are our potential allies.” Many people attracted to the Trump campaign, alternatively, could be attracted to a consistent vision of an alternative to capitalist society, which up till now has not existed. They will not, however, be attracted to a defense of the existing state of affairs—no matter how dressed up in notions of understanding, tolerance and opportunity.
We are convinced that the only way out of the terrible mess that this country and the world are in is the development of a mass radical movement—a movement that will challenge the fundamental bases and characteristics of capitalist society with a program for the radical reconstruction of this society under the direct democratic control of the immense majority of the people. Such a movement cannot restrict itself to participation in electoral campaigns of any kind. We need to be clear—we do not believe that such a movement can be built upon the legacies and traditions of liberalism, progressivism, social democracy or Stalinism-Trotskyism-Maoism.
Over the course of the last six years, Insurgent Notes has published fourteen issues of its online journal. For the most part, we attracted modest levels of attention and support. Recently, we believe in response to articles and editorials focused on the election and its outcome, we have seen a dramatic upswing in the number of visits to our website, the number of comments posted and the number of new subscribers.
We feel compelled to seize upon that momentum to find out how we might contribute to the development of the movement that we so desperately need. We recognize that such a movement will be the result of the coming together of individuals with different experiences and political convictions. Towards that end, we also believe that we need to come up with new forms of political organization that can allow for the definition of fundamental agreements, provide space for ongoing productive conversations and enable us to act in concert as events unfold.
Let’s briefly describe what our preliminary ideas are for the meeting:
- The meeting would take up the better part of a day—perhaps from 11 am to 5 pm.
- We hope to include panel discussions on at least the following major topics:
- The world’s crises and the election
- Class and race: is there anything new to say?
- An anti-capitalist vision
- Creating a new language of hope and revolt
- Naming and fighting male supremacy
- Imagining new forms of political organization.
- We also hope to include opportunities for people to get to know each other and to actively engage in conversations about the most pressing of the issues.
- We’re going to work hard before and during the meeting to insure that presentations and comments go far beyond the mere restatement of prior convictions or the re-arguing of old debates.
- We’d like to entertain suggestions for next steps after the meeting.
- We’re hoping to sponsor an informal social event at the end of the day.
Please feel free to circulate this message to people who you think might be interested. We’ll be posting details about the meeting on this website.
If you have any questions, please write to us.
In hopeful solidarity,
The Editors
Comments
“We are calling this meeting because, along with many others, we realize that we are entering a time of great uncertainties and great dangers—dangers that result from what the government does here and abroad and dangers that result from the emergence of a variety of new right-wing populist and nationalist forces that can only be understood as pre-fascist or fascist. At the same time, we insist that the great majority of Trump supporters cannot and should not be tarred with such a brush. Indeed, as we wrote in our most recent editorial, “There are people in the Hillary camp who are our enemies, and there are people in the Trump camp who are our potential allies.” Many people attracted to the Trump campaign, alternatively, could be attracted to a consistent vision of an alternative to capitalist society, which up till now has not existed. ”
Exactly who and what constitutes “the great majority” of Trump supporters who cannot and should not be “tarred” with that brush; who are “potential allies”?
That seems to be a great exaggeration; there might be a minority of Trump supporters who might be won over; but since the great majority of Trump supporters are the same supporters who have elected reactionary state and local governments, reactionary senators and right wing congressional representatives; and since it is evident that the same great majority of Trump supporters are those who supported Romney and McCain, and before that Bush– not to mention Christie, Giuliani, Gingrich; is IN claiming that its a different great majority that constitutes Trump supporters?
Thanks for your comment. When we said “great majority” of Trump supporters, we merely meant that the great majority were not pre-fascist or fascist. Trump’s support was basically a fusion of the old “Tea Party”, white middle and upper-middle class types who repudiate the
former mainstream of the Republican Party (what they call RINOs or Republicans in Name Only) with a new, white, blue-collar and rural vote, who were attracted to Trump’s railing against the “establishment”. One can wonder about a billionaire presenting himself as “anti-restablishment” but there was no way that Clinton could distance herself from that association. We look to places place McComb county in the Detroit suburbs, a white, blue-collar area which was one birthplace of the “Reagan Democrats” in the 1980’s. In
2008 and 2012, they voted for Obama; in the primaries, they voted for
Sanders, and in the election they voted for Trump. There are a lot of McComb counties out there, and we feel that is the part of Trump’s base which will be quickly disabused as his economic promises to them fall flat. We may be wrong, but it is to that break in the Trump coalition that we look forward as an opening for a radical left.
Please find attached the response of Anti-Capital
http://anti-capital21stcentury.blogspot.com/p/of-blind-spots-and-bollocks_12.html
We sincerely hope this meeting is productive.
It’s Macomb county, not McComb- something I know from having spent far too much time in the state of Michigan, which state just happens to have the reputation, and the evidence to support it, of being acutely, painfully divided along the color line.
The “choice” of Macomb county as the poster child for a populist, but not racist, rejection of “elitism” in its vote for Trump betrays a lack of understanding of the history and the recent demographic changes betrays a lack of familiarity equal to if not greater than simply an incorrect spelling.
Macomb county was one of the “fortress” white areas, north of 8 mile, and a “safe haven” from black Detroit, although Mt. Clemens has always had a significant black population.
Macomb county has also been one of the fastest growing, if not fastest growing counties in Michigan. Part of that growth is the influx of black now-ex-residents from Detroit, whom attracted by the relatively modest home prices, due of course to the collapse in 2008, and the lowered property taxes have been able to make the move.
The country remains 80-85% white– that the county went for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and in the Democratic primary went for Sanders hardly makes it an area of radical discontent with capitalism, or with “elitism.” The 2016 vote just as likely represents a backlash against the increased number of African-Americans moving into the county– and it might represent a backlash because African-Americans have high school graduation rates marginally above those for whites; and college attendance rates above those for whites. Or it might involve backlash as Asian-Americans have moved into the county and have median household incomes above those for whites.
But to think Macomb’s flip represents some sort of “opening” or basis for collaboration with Trump supporters doesn’t seem to be justified on the basis that in the previous 2 elections the county went for Obama.
Those who want to know more about Macomb County– and who doesn’t?–can check out: http://www.newdetroit.org/docs/press/MetropolitanDetroit_RaceEquity_Report_NewDetroit.pdf– read critically, of course….as in all things.
How much is admission? Do we have to RSVP?
Admission is free. It would be helpful if you pre-registered by sending an email message to editors@insurgentnotes.com and included a cell phone number.
Editors
Trackbacks
4 pings so far.