Our readers respond on left conference

Scan page 10

AB one The art to have l. half t of left y argument takes gutstituted The following are three letters from readers in response to Socialist Action's coverage of the West Coast Conference on Socialism and Activism. (See September 1986 Socialist Action article, "West Coast conference steers activists to Democratic Party.") A reply by the editor of Socialist Action is on the following page.

As one of the main organizers of the West Coast Conference on Socialism and Activism that was held in Berkeley, Calif., July 25-27, I read with some interest the article on the conference that appeared in the September issue of Socialist Action.

The conference was planned as an opportunity for different sectors of the progressive movement to come together, discuss tactics and strategies, and hopefully lay the basis for greater unity. Most feedback about the conference has been very favorable and indicates that it was a success in bringing activists from the different movements together to discuss common problems and perspectives for future work.

The gathering, reflecting a process that has been growing over the past few years, was with few exceptions marked by comradely debate among different political tendencies and a minimum of sectarianism. It was a reflection of the "de-sectarianism" that has matured in much of the left in recent years.

The article was an unfortunate step backward from this process. It is one thing to have legitimate political differences. It is quite another to present a stew of half truths, selected quotations, and mind reading as a report of the conference.

Students of left polemics will recognize the methodology used in the article. The line of argument takes whatever program or strategy one thinks is worst for the movement and projects it onto those one is arguing against—no matter how ill the fit and with no consideration for the actual content of an opponent's position. Animus and invective are substituted for analysis and insight.

The article uses a very broad brush stroke to tar everyone connected with the conference with the Democratic Party bogeyman. The heart of the conference—six panels and over 70 workshops where activists and socialists discussed strategies—was totally ignored.

The organizers for the conference included a number of independent activists as well as individuals from a 1986 (more)

number of left organizations such as the North Star Network, Solidarity, Line of March, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and-to a lesser extent-the Communist Party and the League for Revolutionary Struggle.

These groups have a wide variety of positions concerning the Democratic Party. The conference itself reflected a number of views concerning the Democratic Party from the view expressed by Jim Shoch of DSA of strategic support for the Democratic Party to that of Bernie Sanders, socialist mayor of Burlington, Vt., that it is necessary to do electoral work totally outside of the two-party system. The workshop that dealt specifically with this issue, "The Democratic Party and the Left," also reflected a range of views from DA's position of support to Solidarity's position of complete opposition to the Democratic Party.

The article sets up parts of one presentation-that of DSA-as representative of the entire conference. It begins with a quote from Jim Shoch-who is wrongly characterized as a "keynote speaker"-and says that the unofficial goal of the conference organizers was "Stop Reagan and Vote Democratic." That may be how Socialist Action wishes to characterize DA's position but it was hardly the position of conference organizers or conference literature.

Organizers for the conference were also surprised to learn that they "believe the working class...is marginal to the struggle for social change." A major panel plus a number of workshops addressed the centrality of the working class. The article goes on to invent a "deep pessimism of conference organizers and panelists." If conference organizers were so pessimistic about the left, it is unclear why they would spend six months organizing a meeting to help work toward greater unity.

Socialist Action also rails against the use of the phrase "conservative era" in part of the subtitle of the conference, "Progressive Politics in a Conservative Era." Anne Braden, one of the main opening night speakers specifically said she didn't believe we were in a conservative era because so much activity was going on at the grassroots level.

One of the major organizers of the conference also noted at the conclusion of the conference that no one on the organizing committee believed we were in a conservative era in the sense that the whole country had moved to the right. The point was that the right wing was in power in Washington and setting much of the national agenda-"that the ruling class as a whole has turned to the right", as Socialist Action recognized in its article.

To say, as the article does, that the conference "identif[ies] the rightward turn of the ruling class with the consciousness of workers"-which was specifically rejected at the conference—means either that the Socialist Action reporter was out of the room when the question was discussed or simply didn't want to hear anything which interfered with his preconceptions.

The most blatant departure from reality was probably the characterization of Bernie Sanders, who—it is said—"evokes a vision of middle class socialism which sees the working class as marginal to the process of social change.

Anyone with the slightest familiarity with Sanders' three successful runs for mayor of Burlington, Vt., as well as his current campaign knows that he puts a working-class perspective at the center of his program. He has in fact been criticized for underplaying the role of social movements such as feminism and the peace movement by some on the left because of his emphasis on the working class. It was Sanders who was one of two major speakers concluding the conference. (The other was Anne Braden).

The article ill serves fruitful discussion of the matters at hand facing the left. Hopefully in the future, Socialist Action can concentrate its fire on our common enemies rather than engage in the kind of internecine warfare which has so plagued the left.

Dear editor, In his article on the West Coast Conference on Socialism and Activism in the September issue of Socialist Action, Joe Ryan refers to the sponsors of the conference as "several pro-Democratic Party publications, including The Guardian, the Progressive, and Socialist Review." The other sponsors can speak for themselves, but Ryan's reference to the Progressive is a blatant falsehood.

Even a casual glance at any issue of the Progressive will swiftly dispel the notion that ours is a "proDemocratic Party publication"; in fact, we are regularly denounced by liberals who resent our refusal to play the "lesser evil" game. An editorial in our August issue-which was distributed at the Conference-noted that "the positions of the two major parties are now virtually indistinguishable on issues of foreign policy, and the Democrats have planned it that way."

If your reporter had bothered to attend the opening plenary of the Conference he purported to cover, he would have heard me, as one of the first speakers, state clearly and unequivocally that the Conference should help free the Left from its slavish adherence to the two-party system in general, and to the Democratic Party in particular.

While we have our political differences with Socialist Action, I would not dream of misrepresenting your position to the Progressive's readers. You ought to have the decency and solidarity to extend the same courtesy to US.

Erwin Knoll, Editor, the Progressive, Madison, Wisc.

Dear editor, I attended the Sunday session of the West Coast Conference on Socialism and Activism last month in Berkeley and enjoyed reading your article on the conference in the September issue of Socialist Action. I would like, however, to take issue with the author on a couple of points.

First, DSA's Jim Shoch named Gary Hart and Mario Cuomo as the two "acceptable" Democratic Party presidential candidates, not Hart and Ted Kennedy as the article states.

Second, and more important, in the context of the author's criticism of the conference, Bernie Sanders did not mention Democratic Party politics as an option at the conference. He in fact stressed his own working-class base in Burlington, Vt., and his mayoral campaign's door-to-door organizing around issues as the key to his electoral success. He is opposed by a Democratic Party candidate in the November gubernatorial election.

While the afternoon's panel members and quite possibly the conference organizers promoted the Democratic Party alternative, Bernie Sanders did not. I feel that it was inaccurate to group him with the other speakers as a proponent of the strategy of working within the Democratic Party Lucy Rideout, Berkeley, Calif.

----- pull-quotes -----

September ! Socialism & Activism

favoratle ond Indicatos that 1t The patherine, ros with few ex work. was with tu las" that has tor

Conference organizer objects to coverage

10 SOCIALIST ACTION OCTOBER 1986 409 EAST MAIN STREET The Progressive MADISON. W 5370 3435 Army Street No. 308 September 3, 1986 Dear editox,

blatant falsehood. for themselves, but Ryan's reference to The Progressive is a have planned it that way." indistinguishable on issues of foreign policy, and the Democrats as one of the first speakers, state clearly and unequivocally that gressive's readers. You ought to have the decency and Erwin Knoll tOE. Madison, WI Editor, The Progressive

The Progressive editor claims falsehood

Berkeley reader likes article but...