'Democracy' in the United States (a debate)

Send us a text

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote that “the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.” Almost two centuries later, the battle for democracy continues. Today, economic precarity and social upheavals have led many to question our present political system. In these times, DSA’s position that the United States is “no democracy at all” is a rousing and powerful assertion against mainstream narratives. At this event, DSA members Jerry Harris and Luke Pickrell will discuss their understanding of democracy, whether the Constitution supports or frustrates democracy, and to what extent socialists should "fight for" or "defend" democracy going into the 2024 Presidential elections.

Jerry Harris is the national secretary of the Global Studies Association and on the international board of the Network for Critical Studies of Global Capitalism. He is a retired union activist with over 120 published articles on political economy, globalization, democracy and other topics. His work has been translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, German and Chinese. His last book was "Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Democracy."

Luke Pickrell is a member of East Bay DSA and Marxist Unity Group. He's written in Cosmonaut and The Democratic Constitution Blog, and contributed to various discussions in the Why Marx? project. He's also interviewed or co-interviewed several people about democracy and the U.S. Constitution for Cosmopod, including Robert Ovetz, Douglas Egerton, Gil Shaeffer, and Bruno Leipold.

The video version of this episode can be found on YouTube here.

Become a member of Democratic Socialists of America.

Episode Transcript

Elton LK (00:00):
You're listening to Class, an official podcast of
the Democratic Socialists ofAmerica National Political
Education Committee.
My name is Elton lk.
Today we have another bonusepisode.
This episode is a debate betweenNational Political Education
Committee members, Luke Pickrelland Jerry Harris on their

(00:21):
understanding of democracy,whether the constitution
supports.
Or frustrates democracy and towhat extent socialists should
quote, fight for or defenddemocracy.
Going into the 2024 presidentialelection, it was recorded
January 27th of this year, whichis 2024.

(00:43):
Luke has written in Cosmonautand the Democratic Constitution
blog and contributed to variousdiscussions in the Why Marx
project.
Jerry is the National Secretaryof the Global Studies
Association on the InternationalBoard of the Network for
Critical studies of GlobalCapitalism.

(01:04):
He is a retired union activistwith over 120 published articles
on political economy,globalization, democracy, and
other topics.
His last book was GlobalCapitalism and the Crisis of
Democracy.

Sarah Callahan (01:23):
Okay, welcome everyone.
Welcome to our event, Democracyin the United States.
It's going to be a debateleading up to November.
This is part of the NationalPolitical Education Committee's
events that we do.
My name is Sarah Callahan andI'm on the steering committee
for NPAC.
Um, this is our first eventwhere we have reached out to
caucuses.
So thank you for everyone whoturned out their members to this

(01:45):
event.
I'm just gonna read like areally short blurb about their
event.
So, in the Communist Manifesto,Mark and Engels wrote that the
first step in the revolution bythe working class is to raise
the proletariat to the positionof ruling class, to win the
battle of democracy.
Almost two centuries later, thebattle for democracy continues

(02:06):
today.
Economic precarity and socialupheaves have led many to
question our present politicalsystems.
And these times DSA's positionthat the United States is no
democracy at all is arousing andpowerful assertion against
mainstream narratives.
And this event, DSA membersJerry Harris and Luke Pickle
will discuss their understandingof democracy, whether the

(02:28):
constitution supports orfrustrates democracy, and to
what extent socialists shouldfight for or defend democracy
going into the 2024 presidentialelections.
First, I'm going to introduceJerry Harris, who is the
National Secretary of the GlobalStudies Association and on the
International Board of theNetwork of Critical Studies of
Global Capitalism.

(02:48):
He is a retired union activistwith over 120 published articles
on political economy,globalization, democracy, and
other topics.
His works have been translatedinto Spanish, Portuguese, Czech,
German, and Chinese.
His last book was GlobalCapitalism and the Crisis of
Democracy.
And the next I'm going tointroduce Luc Picquerel, who is

(03:10):
a member of East Bay DSA and amember of Marxist Unity Group.
He's written Cosmonaut in theDemocratic Constitution blog and
contributed to variousdiscussion in the Why Marx
Project.
He's also interviewed or cointerviewed several people for
Cosmopod about democracy in theU.
S.
Constitution.
So I'm going to jump in and I'mgoing to have Luke and Jerry

(03:30):
both do a presentation for 15minutes, starting with Luke.
Luke, if you want to go ahead.
Yeah, thanks Sarah.
Thanks everyone for coming outand joining us this evening.
I'm looking forward to thediscussion.
So, I'll leap right into it.
Democracy and the U.
S.
Constitution are the mostcritical topics that are facing

(03:51):
the American left today.
And the Constitution alwaysshapes our lives, but awareness
of its power.
I think is really heightenedduring presidential elections.
And of course, when you know it,this is an election year this
year, uh, the democratic, uh,democratic party's message is

(04:11):
clear.
Trump is an aspiring dictator.
The magnet movement is, isfascist and only a vote for Joe,
for Joe Biden will neutralizethe bad guys.
And that's only because theDemocrats, only the Democrats
will defend democracy, maintainthe guardrails of the
constitution and ensure that thesun keeps rising each morning.

(04:35):
So this afternoon, I want tomake three broad arguments.
Each one of those argumentsreally goes under the umbrella
of what I'm going to calldemocratic republicanism.
The first argument I want tomake is that contrary to what
Biden says.
The U.
S.
is not a democracy.
The second argument I'm going tomake is that we should care that

(04:57):
we don't live in a democracy.
And the third argument is thatthe theory of classical Marxism,
which is everything prior to theBolsheviks establishing a one
party state, Along with thehistory of the Civil Rights
Movement and the history ofStudents for a Democratic
Society or SDS.
All that has a lot to offer, uh,what we need, which is a mass

(05:20):
democratic socialist movement inthis country.
Democratic Republicanism is oneof three perspectives on the
American left.
Those other two perspectives arewhat I'm going to call an
electoral perspective and asocialist perspective.

(05:40):
And these two other struggles,they really put democracy on the
back burner.
I'm going to dive into that alittle bit here.
So, the electoral strategy, theelectoral perspective, says that
democracy is the ability tovote.
Because of that, the U.
S.
is more or less democratic.

(06:01):
And therefore, the best strategyis to work through the three
branches of government that wehave to enact progressive laws.
Doubt, however, can grow withinthe electoral camp when
legislation runs into the brickwall of the Senate.
And so, for example, onesenator, Joe Manchin, Joe

(06:22):
Manchin represents a reallyminuscule percentage of the
entire U.
S.
population.
That one person can stop Biden'sStrip Down, Build Back Better
Act.
That's a good example of runninginto the brick wall of the
Senate.
Hard work.
can really start to feelSisyphean.
You roll the rock up to the topof the hill only to watch the

(06:44):
rock roll right back down.
People might start thinkingabout uncapping the house,
abolishing the filibuster,putting term limits on supreme
court justices, and maybegetting rid of the electoral
college.
That's one perspective.
The socialist perspective Alsodownplays the importance of the

(07:06):
constitution.
Uh, there are more criticalthings to consider than the law
and bourgeois democracy.
There are a lot of differentpositions that fall under the
socialist umbrella, but I'dargue that all pretty much
believe that a socialistrevolution is needed to realize
democracy and that the way tobring about this revolution is

(07:27):
by spreading socialistconsciousness.
And really supporting anythingthat builds the class struggle.
Political agitation within thisperspective is linking every
problem to capitalism, andreally linking every solution to
socialism.
The best political strategy thenis to either ignore politics and

(07:52):
build working class power, usethe political arena to spread
the good news of socialism, orsomehow combine the two.
In contrast to those twoperspectives, then, democratic
republicanism says that theworking class must first win the
battle for democracy.

(08:13):
That a democratic revolution isneeded to realize socialism.
That democracy is defined ascomplete and unobstructed
political rule by the people.
And that a democratic state isone in which total lawmaking
power is vested in a unicamerallegislature elected by universal
and equal suffrage.

(08:35):
So those are the threeperspectives in a democratic
state.
The principle of one person andone equal vote is supreme.
And Victor Berger actually, Ithink, described this principle
really well to his Americanaudience in 1911, Berger said
that the Senate Thank you verymuch.
Is, and then this is a longquote, is an obstructive and a

(08:57):
useless body, a menace to thepeople's liberty and an obstacle
to social growth.
All legislative power will bevested in the House of
Representatives.
Its enactments subject to areferendum will be the Supreme
Law and the president shall haveno power to veto them, nor will
any court have the power toinvalidate them.

(09:19):
That's Victor Berger, asocialist.
putting forward what needs tohappen in order to make the
state democratic.
Where does democraticrepublicanism come from?
This perspective that I think weneed to put forward.
The theoretical roots are in TomPaine's Common Sense, also his
Rights of Man and hisdissertation on the first

(09:42):
principles of government.
They're also in the PennsylvaniaConstitution of 1776.
They're also in the FrenchRevolution's Declaration of the
Rights of Man and Citizens andthe Constitution of 1793.
And also Mary Wollstonecraft'sRights of Women, the theoretical

(10:02):
roots are also in the BritishPeople's Charter of 1838, and
also in Babouf's Manifesto ofthe Equals, and what I really
want to emphasize is that Marxand Engels grabbed hold of those
roots, and that's seen in textslike The Principles of
Communism, and The communistmanifesto and the critique of

(10:23):
the draft German socialdemocratic program that was
published in 1891, just asimportant, this theory of
democratic republicanism liveson within the socialist movement
after their deaths.
That could be seen in Kautsky'sThe Republic and Social
Democracy in France, Luxemburg'sTheory and Practice, the 1903

(10:47):
Russian Social Democratic LaborParty program, and then also the
American Socialist Party'sPlatform of 1912.
In the United States, in thiscountry, the struggle for
democracy was really driven backunderground by the counter
revolution againstReconstruction.
Now I want to take a few quotesfrom some of those sources.

(11:10):
So from Tom Paine, Tom Painesays that the true and only true
basis of representativegovernment is equality of
rights.
Every man has a right to onevote and no more in the choice
of representatives.
From Marx, Marx says the firststep in the revolution by the
working class is to raise theproletariat to the position of

(11:31):
ruling class, to win the battleof democracy.
Engels, writing just a few yearsbefore his death, Engels says,
Marx and I for 40 years repeatedad nauseum that for us the
democratic republic is the onlypolitical form in which the
struggle between the workingclass and the capitalist class
can first be universalized andthen culminate in the decisive

(11:55):
victory of the proletariat.
From the party of the SocialistParty of America, excuse me, the
program of the Socialist Partyof America, we got the idea of
abolishing the Senate and thepresident's veto power, electing
the president and vice presidentby direct vote, and abolishing
the Supreme Court's power ofjudicial review.

(12:17):
So recently, a few historianshave rediscovered the centrality
of democracy to Lenin'spolitical thought.
If you're willing to fight forpolitical freedom, Lars Lee
wrote in 2005, you were Lenin'sally, even if you were hostile
to socialism.
If you downgraded the goal ofpolitical freedom in any way,
you were Lenin's foe.

(12:38):
Even if you were a committedsocialist, Lee had read Neal
Harding and Neal Harding in 1977wrote that according to Lenin,
workers didn't have to come tosocialist consciousness to
acquire political consciousness.
And then Neal Harding workedcontemporaneously with Hal
Draper and Hal Draper did hispart, a very important part, in

(13:01):
debunking the myth of anundemocratic Lenin.
And one of the things I want toemphasize today is that
everything I've just presentedso far, all this theory, this is
almost all the theory and thehistory that's needed for a mass
democratic socialist movement inthe U.
S.
Any propagandist and agitator,wrote Lennon, must find the best

(13:25):
means of influencing any givenaudience by presenting a
definite truth in such a way asto make it most convincing, most
easy to digest, most graphic,and most strongly impressive.
So today, here I am talking withyou all, my audience is Jerry,
and of course you all, any otherDSA members listening, which I

(13:48):
hope includes Bhaskar Sankara,Eric Blanc, Chris Maisano, and
Seth Ackerman.
These are folks, publishers, andwriters for Jacobin who, over
the years, have recognized Thatthe U.
S.
political system is notdemocratic, and who've written
very persuasively about that,which is commendable.
Simultaneously, though, theykind of confusingly refer to the

(14:11):
U.
S.
as a capitalist democracy.
DSA's political platform issimilarly confusing.
The platform says that the U.
S.
is no democracy at all, and thenat the same time, it says we
should strengthen and deepen ourdemocracy.
So one of the questions I wantto ask us is why is there this

(14:32):
in, in, inconsistency, um, andwhat would it mean to admit that
the U.
S.
isn't a democracy, to engagewith Marx and Engels democratic
republicanism, And then toconclude, uh, that the first
step is to win actual democracyin this country.

(14:52):
So, people don't forget when thegovernment gives a collective
shrug in the face of popularlegislation, right?
They don't forget gettingscrewed over, and I'll go
through a little list.
The Obama administrationoverseeing bank bailouts during
the Great Recession.
In 2013, there was a universalbackground check bill that was

(15:14):
filibustered to death.
By 45 senators who representedonly 38 percent of the
population.
The next year, there was a billto raise the minimum wage.
Supported by two thirds ofAmericans.
It died in the Senate 2016.
Trump of course lost the popularvote, but won the election.

(15:36):
And then of course the BuildBack Better Act was processed
through the legislative meatgrinder, as they call it.
It emerges in tatters.
The Democrats let the child taxcredit die, which sends 65
million children right back intopoverty.
The Supreme Court blocks studentdebt relief.
Jeopardizes abortion access, soon and so forth.

(15:58):
And then also, the wars, right?
The endless wars that you and Ihave no control over, even if
the president soughtcongressional approval, which he
doesn't.
In the face of this masspolitical apathy and growing
discontent, the Democratic Partyfearmongers and distorts and

(16:18):
manipulates the meaning ofdemocracy for its own purposes.
If the Democrats really caredabout democracy, I want to
argue, or if they really caredabout stopping Trump, they would
demand a democraticconstitution.
Trump and the far right didn'tget to where they are despite a
revered constitution, as somehave argued, but they actually

(16:39):
got there because of it, andwith help from the Democratic
Party.
And so only the, uh, ultimatelyI should say the only meaningful
division between politicalmovements is the question of
democracy.
Democracy is either somethingthat you want or you don't want,
and therefore you either fightthe Constitution or you support

(17:00):
the Constitution.
What's interesting is that oursituation parallels France's
debate surrounding the DreyfusAffair and Alexander Millerand
joining the government in 1899to defend the Republic, to save
democracy, so on and so forth.
Equally interesting is that KarlKautsky and Rosa Luxemburg

(17:22):
weren't fooled.
They actually wrote verypersuasively.
Um, and this is Kautsky sayingif you want to strengthen the
propagandist power of theRepublican idea in France, then
you have to show that theRepublic we want is the Republic
of 1793, 1848, and 1871.
Right, that the democracy wewant is fundamentally different

(17:43):
from the Republic of today.
So to wrap up, I'm going totouch on two organizations and
their relationship to theConstitution, the Contemporary
Poor People's Campaign, and thenalso Students for a Democratic
Society.
There's a tendency, I think, onthe American left to label SDS
and the civil rights movementnot socialist, and thereby

(18:06):
dismiss really two decades ofour history, which is
disappointing.
So in 1968, MLK writes that thecivil rights movement has left
the realm of constitutionalrights and has entered the area
of human rights.
Today's.
Four people campaign looks tocontinue on that legacy and they
make a lot of demands which Idon't have time to go into now,

(18:29):
but the important thing is thatwhile they critique the state.
And, um, various elements of theConstitution, they don't
critique the Constitutionitself.
So I want us to think about thata little bit.
And then I'll end with, um,Students for a Democratic
Society and, and say that theiridea of participatory democracy,
um, is very interesting and verylaudable.

(18:50):
And yet no one asked ifparticipatory democracy was
possible in a country with anundemocratic Constitution.
And I think that this was reallya missed opportunity.
But it's also one that we canlearn from.
So ultimately wrap up just bysaying, I think our disagreement
concerns something sort of otherthan the undemocratic structure

(19:14):
of the U S constitution, butreally comes down to the content
of our political message, to theideas, uh, that we present to
the public and I'll try andtouch on those a little later.
And I just want to end by sayingthat all of the struggles that
DSA is engaged in, all of thiscomes down to who has political

(19:34):
power.
And I really think that thestruggle for democracy is what
will determine who has thatpolitical power.
Thanks so much, and I'm lookingforward to continuing the
discussion.
Thanks, Luke.
Alright, next I'm going to haveJerry.
Um, and also just a reminderthat our Q& A is open, so if
anyone wants to toss anyquestions in there, we're going

(19:56):
to have a Q& A section.
Um, for now, Jerry, go ahead.
Thanks.
So, uh, thanks, Luke.
I really felt that was, uh,really interesting, and there's
a lot I agree with, uh,particularly that democracy is
the most important questionfacing the left.
And I really appreciate yourhistoric, um, review of Tom

(20:17):
Paine and the French Revolutionand Lenin and the democratic
tradition within socialism, Ithink is very important.
Um, but I think when we talkabout the United States is not a
democracy, that's, you talkabout the political content of
our message being important.

(20:39):
I think that is the wrongapproach, because millions upon
millions of Americans believe wedo live in a democracy, and it
ends up being a very confusedmessage.
Um, in fact, I would say thatwhat we're doing right now is
participating in democracy.
We're a socialist organization.

(21:00):
We have people from all over thecountry listening to what we're
speaking about.
We exist legally.
We organize openly.
All that is democracy.
It's bourgeois democracy, butit's democracy.
And to say that we don't live ina democracy flies in the face of
our existence as DSA and everyother socialist or revolutionary

(21:25):
organization in the UnitedStates.
So I also want to approach thisquestion from sort of a
historical point of view, andactually a dialectical point of
view, and I want to start withthe American Revolution.
The first great anti colonialrevolution, and, uh, the
American Revolution was carriedout by an alliance of class

(21:47):
forces, uh, primarily in theleadership, of course, was the
commercial bourgeoisie of theNorth and the plantation
slavocracy of the South, but themass base of the revolution and
the soldiers of the revolutionUh, were farmers and, uh,
workers like the Longshoremen inBoston and craftsmen.

(22:12):
And, uh, the, uh, writing of theConstitution, therefore, was
really a result of a balance ofclass forces, which produced
various types of compromises.
Uh, the main compromises werebetween, uh, the commercial
bourgeoisie of the North and theplantation bourgeoisie of the

(22:34):
South.
And out of that compromise, weget things like the electoral
college and the three fifths ofa human being, uh, law dealing
with slavery and other things.
But there are also concessionsand compromises with the, uh,
mass popular base of therevolution.
And those compromises, I think,are the Bill of Rights.

(22:55):
So we get, uh, freedom of press,freedom of speech.
Freedom of assembly, uh, freedomto, uh, redress our grievances
to the government, a jury by ourpeers.
Essentially, what was createdwas civil society and
citizenship.
For the first time, you wereborn with inalienable rights,

(23:19):
uh, from the government, notfrom God, not from a king, but
as a citizen of a country.
and belonging to, as I said,civil society.
Uh, Jefferson lays down theideological sort of basis when
he writes, you know, all men arecreated equal.
Of course, Jefferson meant allwhite men who own property are

(23:43):
equal, and that is written intothe Constitution as well.
In fact, that's the primaryaspect of the Constitutions, of
course, is a capitalistconstitution written to enhance
and expand the power of thecapitalist class, but there's
another aspect, uh, the otherpart of the dialectic, uh,

(24:06):
within the constitution thatgives us democracy, uh, and in
fact, uh, the working class haveused that dialectic.
Aspect, uh, to expand democracyin struggles over the last 250
years, whether it's the laborstruggle.
The women's struggle, uh, the,uh, struggle for, uh, the gay

(24:30):
movement and the queer movement,uh, civil rights, all those mass
movements have used the aspectswithin the existing constitution
to fight for greater democracyand expand it.
That's a contradiction.
That's a dialectic between thesetwo historical Aspects of what

(24:51):
came out of the American and theFrench Revolution and the
Haitian Revolution, for thatmatter of fact, to, um, now, uh,
those popular struggles toexpand democracy have always
been met with resistance andbacklash and violence.
That's because the US is animperialist.

(25:13):
racist, patriarchal, and violentsociety.
That's that aspect of thedialectic.
That's the primary aspect ofwhat American capitalism is all
about.
But there's also another aspect,which is the democratic aspect,
which gives us a good amount ofpolitical flexibility and

(25:34):
political rights, um, that weare, have used, uh, for the last
250 years.
Uh, so I think if you talk tothe American people that and
tell them this is not ademocracy, uh, it just puts up a
barrier in terms ofunderstanding, uh, what the

(25:57):
society's content really is andhow to fight within it.
Um, how does this, uh, sort ofhistoric dialectic get resolved?
Well, I think there's twopossible resolutions.
Uh, between these two aspectsthat have been in contradiction

(26:17):
for the last couple hundredyears.
One is a, uh, neo fascist, uh,authoritarian, uh, government,
which, uh, we can see is on thehorizon, based in, uh, Christian
nationalism and white supremacyand patriarchy, uh, crushes

(26:37):
civil society, uh, andestablishes authoritarian rule.
So that is a very present andreal danger.
It's always been an aspect inone way or another of American
society from the very beginning.
Uh, and it's always been incontradiction with expanding

(26:57):
civil society, expanding massdemocracy.
It's been a constant struggle.
The other aspect of therevolution is our resolution,
which would be, uh, eventuallyrewriting the Constitution.
That's actually a question ofthe balance of forces, and I
wouldn't want to do that untilwe had a, uh, Solid socialist

(27:20):
majority in this country, but weneed to end capitalism with a
eco socialist, uh, multiracialdemocracy.
Those are the two ways that thathistoric dialectic is eventually
resolved between that, thosestruggles.
And that's sort of the core of,in many ways, where we are

(27:41):
today, uh, struggling betweenthese two choices.
I think there's a realdifference between fascism and
bourgeois democracy.
I know this is not what Leep wassaying, but I know a lot of
people on the left, and this isbeen a problem ever since I've

(28:02):
been, uh, around the left as ateenager, uh, of talking about
the U.
S.
as a fascist country or nodemocracy as the DSA is that no
democracy.
Um, maybe I could just digress alittle bit and, uh, a short
story here.
I had traveled for about a yearthrough South America in 73 and

(28:26):
74.
I was heading to Chile.
Uh, when, uh, the coup d'etatagainst Salvador Allende and
socialist government took place,I was in southern Colombia at
the time.
So I diverted to Argentina, andin Argentina, there was a mass
revolutionary movement thatincluded all sorts of left

(28:47):
groups, uh, revolutionaryPeronistas, Maoists,
Trotskyists, traditional CP.
Left social Democrats.
Everybody was in the streets.
Everybody was demonstrating.
It was really an exciting time.
Um, and, and, uh, about sixmonths after I left Argentina,

(29:07):
uh, the people I stayed with,the people I hung out with, uh,
everybody I knew.
Uh, we're, we're underground,we're going into exile because
of the military fascist coupd'etat.
Again, everybody I knew waseither killed, tortured, jailed,
in exile, or underground.

(29:29):
That's the difference betweenfascism and bourgeois democracy.
So when we talk about America isnot a democracy, that totally
confuses this question, totallyconfuses in our minds that
there's no difference betweenauthoritarianism and bourgeois
democracy.
So I've wrestled with myselfabout the coming election.

(29:52):
And maybe I'll just wrap up hereand probably help us debate the
question.
I've debated myself, should Ivote for Biden?
Particularly, obviously, withwhat's going on in Gaza.
And I decided, yes, I would.
Not, but I don't really view itas a vote for Biden.
Because it's not really a votefor an individual.

(30:15):
It's a vote for what conditionsare going to best facilitate
left organizing.
What conditions will bestfacilitate our ability to
organize against capitalism andin fact against Biden himself?
What conditions will bestfacilitate a more open civil

(30:36):
society where we can use thedemocratic rights that we have?
Freedom of the press, freedom ofspeech, freedom to organize,
freedom to demonstrate, and usethose things to build a more
powerful socialist movement inthe United States.
And when I look at it that way,it's obvious that the social
political conditions under Bidenwill be more beneficial to the

(30:58):
left than Trump's neo fascism,which will quickly, I think,
lead to a McCarthy likematerial, uh, uh, conditions.
Uh, and very dangerous, uh, toour existence and to the
existence of millions of peoplethroughout our country.

(31:18):
So let me just wrap it up there.
I'm sure, uh, people will have alot of questions and we can get
into a discussion.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jerry.
All right, and I'm going to haveLuke and Jerry also give 10
minute or 5 minute directresponses.
So starting with you, Luke.

(31:40):
Yeah, thanks, Sarah.
I know we've got someprovocative questions to go into
to, um, the 1st thing I want totouch on is this idea of the US
being a democracy or not ademocracy and.
What the DSA has done and itsplatform when it says the United

(32:03):
States, the country that says itis the world's greatest
democracy is no democracy atall.
Um, I find that actually veryclarifying somewhere along the
way, someone in the DSA or agroup of people in the DSA went
back to the traditionalunderstanding of what is a

(32:24):
democracy.
Um, and that's a contested term,right?
You could probably pull manydifferent political scientists
and say, You know, what is ademocracy, this, that, and the
other.
So I think it's helpful toreally focus in on what folks
have described in our tradition,even, and I listed some of them.

(32:45):
So a democracy being universaland equal suffrage, uh, that
elects a group of people into aunicameral legislature, straight
from the French revolution,straight from Tom Paine, and
it's in the demands of classicalMarxism prior to.

(33:06):
So to really put that front andcenter and say, this is what
democracy is, there might be allthese other different variations
or political systems, but thisis what democracy is.
And it's this particular type ofstate that we need.
In order to carry out a strugglefor something else, the other

(33:31):
thing that I want us to thinkabout is how are we going to
build a particular movement foranything, right?
How are we actually going to getfolks going and moving and and
in action?
Um, you know, Jerry mentionedparticular conditions that we

(33:53):
might need, um, or maybe whatkind of slogans or particular
ideas we'd need to kind of getfolks active.
And that's where I think it'shelpful to put up the two other.
Positions out there besidesdemocratic republicanism being
either electoralism or socialismAnd I hope to touch on this a

(34:16):
little bit later But one ofthose things can say well the
things that we want to get canbe ascertained through this
existing system And then Ithink, at the end of the day,
you'll have to reckon withalways coming up against some
obstacle within the Constitutionand being unable to explain

(34:38):
what's going on.
The other thing, or the otherway you might attempt to do
things, is to build socialistconsciousness.
So say we need a socialistmovement.
And therefore we build maybe thekind of innate power within the
working class or we sloganizefor socialism.

(34:59):
We use the electoral arena totell people about the good news
of socialism and There, itbecomes two different things.
One, it becomes, I suppose, kindof a judgment call in some
senses.
Do you think that it's going tobe under the banner of
socialism, communism, workerspower, that people are
invigorated in this country?

(35:19):
Or do you think that a largermovement can be built under the
banner of democracy?
But it also has to do with howyou think, um, political
consciousness.
Is built and how you reallythink you can engage people and
how you can really connect withpeople.
So those are kind of 2 things Iwant to draw out both the

(35:43):
definition of democracy and thenalso how you can build a
movement and how you can reallyconnect with folks.
Awesome.
Thanks, Luke.
Alright, Jerry, do you want togive me a direct response?
Okay.
Um, Well, I think Luke'sbringing up some really good

(36:05):
questions, how to build amovement, how to connect with
people.
I mean, these are reallyessential things that every
social should have for greatimportance on, um, in terms of
the sort of this definition thatdemocracy is voting.
That's one aspect of democracy,and I think it's an important

(36:28):
one.
Uh, just look at how broad andvicious the right wing is
attacking voting rights and havealways tried to limit voting
rights as an indication of thedanger that may pose to right
wing rule.
But voting is certainly only oneaspect, and perhaps Not the most

(36:49):
important.
As I said, look at our Bill ofRights, freedom of speech,
freedom of press, freedom ofprotest, freedom of grievances,
jury by our peers, uh, andfreedom of religion, et cetera.
I mean, when you, when we talkabout how we want to connect to
people, uh, those are the typesof things that the American

(37:13):
people think of as living in ademocratic society.
So if you go to them and tellthem this isn't a democracy,
it's just Confusing, but the wayto connect with people is to
defend those.
Democratic rights and to expandthem.
It's one in the same struggle.
Uh, I agree with Luke thatthere's some socialists who take

(37:35):
a very sort of dogmatic andpurist approach to this thing
and only want to talk aboutsocialism, never want to
concretely connect with wherepeople are at.
Um, and you can't build amovement that way, but you can
build a movement by getting downwith people in their daily
struggles.
And where they see, uh, what'simportant in their lives.

(37:59):
And what are the tools they useto defend their interests, such
as organizing a union,organizing a community group,
organizing through their church,going to a demonstration, going
to a picket line, signing apetition, speaking out at the
school board, all those basicBill of Rights freedoms or

(38:21):
democratic rights that we have.
And we should be there arm inarm with those folks, but at the
same time.
We can talk to them about theshortcomings and the roadblocks,
uh, that we face because inthose various struggles and all
those things I mentioned is thedialectic, you come up to the

(38:42):
other dominant aspect ofcapitalist society is
repressive, reactionary, racist,patriarchal aspects.
And that's what gives us theability to talk about going
beyond capitalism to amultiracial democracy and a
socialist democracy.
So, participating in these veryreal struggles.

(39:05):
Around democratic struggles isthe road leading to building a
greater socialist democracy andgives us the ability to talk
about awesome.
Thank you, Jerry and Luke forboth of those speeches.
So now we're going to move intosome Q and A's that I have.
Um, I'm going to give you both 2minutes to respond.

(39:28):
Um, the first question is goingto be most people in the United
States describe our country hasa democracy.
and believe it is a good thing.
Should socialists, especiallydemocratic socialists, seek to
claim the term?
And if so, what does this meanby the word democracy?
And I'm going to have Jerry gofirst on this one.

(39:49):
You know, I almost answered thatquestion pretty well on what I
just said.
So yeah, I think we should claimdemocracy.
I think we should declare, uh,It claim it as a as ours.
In fact, it has been ours.
I mean, Luke talked about thehistory of socialist thinkers
and philosophers and organizersand the role of democracy and in

(40:13):
the thinking of thoserevolutionary minded folks.
So we should claim it, but weshould also push it and expand
it.
Uh, and there's no contradictionbetween the two.
I think in our, uh, blurb aboutthe panel we talked about,
should we fight for democracy ordefend democracy?
You do both at the same time.

(40:36):
So I'll throw it over to Lukenow.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Luke.
I think a few things.
Um, one, I can't imagine thatany of the folks, you know, who
I mentioned would look at theUnited States today and say,
this is a democracy.

(40:56):
I just don't think any of themwould.
Um, Marx looked at the UnitedStates in 1848 and said, it's a
democracy and he was wrong.
Angle said contradictory things,you know, in his communist
program, the draft of themanifesto.
So, what you can do is you canfind the folks, Lenin being one
of them, Lenin's pretty good,um, who has a definition of

(41:19):
democracy and sticks to it untilthe end and critiques folks who
waver.
On those definitions ofdemocracy by saying, well,
first, this is our first.
This isn't so that's also why Ithink it really helps to have a
concrete definition that youstick to and you don't waiver
from the other thing.

(41:41):
Um, that I would say is theremight be a difference in terms
of what we think most people inthe United States feel.
And then depending on what theyfeel, what we feel like our job
is to do, um, say folks do thinkthe U.
S.
Is a democracy.
It's the same when folks talkabout capitalism.

(42:02):
What if the working class thinkscapitalism is good?
Well, then we tell themotherwise, right?
It's the same principle.
You live in a democracy.
No, you don't.
And if folks are confused, wehelp them understand and we
clarify that.
But the other thing I want topush off on against is to what
extent folks actually think wedo live in a democracy.

(42:23):
Because there I think wedisagree too.
People aren't exactly biting atthe gun for, uh, a democratic
constitution.
But there's vast, uh,disinterest in politics in this
country.
Um, people, people absolutelyknow that something's up.
People don't forget, you know,being screwed over, as I said.

(42:43):
So that's where it's our job tocome in and, and make that
connection.
Um, I don't actually think itwould be confusing or alienating
at all, uh, to really push thatmessage of the U.
S.
is no democracy, and we need tomake it one.
Awesome.
Thanks, Luke.
All right, so the next question,and I'm going to start with Luke

(43:03):
first this time.
Many of the most importantsocial movements during the past
century in the United Stateshave been focused on the right
to vote, a core, maybe the corecomponent of democracy, women's
suffrage, civil rights, etc.
Is a right to vote slash accessto voting still an important
focus of organizing and strugglein the United States?
Why or why not?

(43:27):
So I'd say the right to vote isnot the core definition of
democracy.
Um, I'd say the right touniversal and equal suffrage is,
uh, the core of democracy.
And then having a state in whichthere aren't, um, minoritarian
checks.
As Robert Overt says that cansomehow come in and disrupt the

(43:48):
power of the people, um, votingis, of course, what people often
think of democracy is being.
And I think I might have said,or I might have cut it that
that's sort of understandable,considering that most political
scientists also define democracyas the ability to vote in terms
of Movements that have beenfighting for the ability to

(44:10):
vote.
I think there, it can beinteresting to look at the civil
rights movement.
Um, and to look at the fact thathere's a struggle that goes a
particular distance, uh, andwages a very important struggle
and then King towards the end ofhis life, basically starts to
think, huh, what if we've comeup to the limits of the

(44:33):
constitution?
What if we've kind of moved pastthat to a certain extent?
And so that's why I'm interestedin engaging with the Poor
People's Campaign and askingthem that question.
You know, you have these variousthings that you want within the
lineage of those movements.
Do you actually think that thesethings can be accomplished

(44:54):
within our existingConstitution?
If you do, what makes you sosure?
What about all thesecounterexamples?
If you don't, why not saysomething about the
Constitution?
Alright, thanks Luke.
Um, next is Jerry.
Um, you know, I'm Marx, um,saying that the United States

(45:21):
was a democracy.
I would say he was right.
Um, but, uh, you know, Marx wasa correspondent for the New York
Tribune, uh, during the CivilWar, wrote about 120 columns.
Uh, and there was some shortcorrespondence between him and
Lincoln.
And, uh, obviously Marx was avery strong supporter of the

(45:42):
northern cause and for the, uh,overthrow of the slavocracy in
the south.
Uh, I think we're sort of facinga situation like that today with
the rise of a neo confederacy.
Uh, in America, and the need tounite behind, uh, defeating the
neoconfederacy and the strugglefor the multiracial democracy.

(46:04):
Um, when you say we could usethe U.
S.
as no democracy, sort of as aslogan or as a mass.
Organizing tool.
Well, there is some people whodo that today.
It's the right wing.
It's the Magna forces.
They're the ones who are jumpingon the U.
S.
Is no democracy, uh, and, uh,that the elections were stolen,

(46:26):
et cetera, et cetera.
So I would be careful about sortof paralyzed, paralyzed the mass
slogans of the right, um, whichDr King, uh, when they started
out the struggle against JimCrow.
Uh, you could erase then this ispossible to achieve with

(46:49):
democracy.
Uh, and, uh, obviously thevictory over Jim Crome, like,
uh, was really a secondreconstruction period, was a
great democratic victory and itchanged qualitatively the life.
Of millions of people.
Uh, there's still miles andmiles to go.

(47:09):
It didn't end racism in anysense, but it certainly changed
the living conditions ofmillions of people, uh, and the
horrible conditions that theylived under.
Um, what I said before aboutsort of rolling up our sleeves
and getting into these strugglesside by side with people around
democratic struggles, yeah, itdoes lead to the next step,

(47:31):
right?
So, as Luke said, then it led tothe Poor People's March and more
of a class orientated struggle,economic struggle, that King was
moving on to.
That's exactly where it goes,and that's exactly where we want
it to go.
We want these struggles, uh, toexpand and defend democracy, to

(47:52):
lead to the next barrier.
Uh, and it's through thoseprocesses where we educate about
socialism being the, uh,necessary step to complete and
consolidate these battles fordemocracy.

(48:12):
Thank you, Jerry.
All right, I have one morequestion, and then Q& A is going
to open up, so ask thosequestions in the Q& A box.
We can go ahead and get them toJerry and Luke.
Um, the next question is, isdemocracy on the ballot in the
upcoming presidential election,as many are saying?
And if so What should DSA in theleft also do during the coming

(48:33):
10 months?
I'll start with you, Jerry.
I would say it is on the ballot.
Um, not in the way we would wantit to be, uh, but it's
definitely staring us in theface.
Uh, I don't think there's anyway to ignore the neo fascist
movement with its, uh, 73million voter base.

(48:58):
I mean You know, they have amuch larger base than we do.
Uh, 73, 74 million people votedfor Trump last time around.
And that is the base of whitesupremacy.
That is the base of Christiannationalism.
That is the base for patriarchy.
And all you have to do is lookat Texas and Florida and all

(49:18):
the, uh, states where the, uh,MAGA forces control, uh, the
states to, to see what theagenda is.
And it's Serious and it'sfrightening.
So I think, uh, the main thingto do in this coming election is
to defend the squad and theleft, uh, the whole office

(49:40):
actually and progressives, butalso I think we need to vote for
Biden as uncomfortable as thatis, as I said before, uh, what
we're voting for is maintainingthe conditions in civil society
that allow us to organizeagainst capitalism.

(50:00):
That's the decision we have tomake.
Uh, what conditions are best fororganizing against racism, are
best for organizing againstcapitalism, are best for
organizing to expand democracyand to able, and to be able to
speak about socialism freely.
Uh, because we're heading forsomething very similar to the

(50:24):
McCarthy period, which wasreally a nasty Period and the
left didn't recover that fromthat probably really until the
Bernie Sanders campaign.
In many ways.
Thank you, Jerry.
Go ahead, Luke.
Sure.
Um, democracy is not on theballot.

(50:46):
Uh, maybe someday democracy willbe on the ballot.
Um, folks in the U.
S.
have actually never had theopportunity to To decide if they
want to live in a democracy,they did a little interesting
experiment, um, in Chile,actually, uh, in the 1980s, kind
of leading up to the ability toeven have a constitutional

(51:09):
referendum where the CommunistParty went around and they asked
folks, what would you do if youactually had the ability to make
a constitution?
What would you do if you had theability to, uh, decide the
constitution that you livedunder?
So folks in the United Stateshave actually not had that
ability.
Um, so leading up to theelections, what do we need to

(51:32):
do?
Um, we need to focus on thedemocratic party.
We need to take the democraticparty, which is the political
force that says, we know whatdemocracy is.
Here's what it is vote for us.
We'll protect your democracy.
So on and so forth.
And we need to expose them.
Uh, we need to brand them ashypocrites, we need to brand

(51:54):
them as charlatans, we need topoint out all the instances in
which they are complicit, notonly in not stopping us from
Donald Trump, not only in notstopping us from the far right,
but actually because they don'tfight the Constitution, in
creating those very consti increating those very uh,
conditions that create thepossibility, uh, for someone

(52:19):
like Donald Trump and for aminoritarian movement.
Uh, to gain a foothold in thiscountry.
So folks will vote for whoeverthey want, right?
Folks will vote for whoever theywant.
I'm not here to tell people whothey should or shouldn't vote
for.
I'm here to talk about what kindof political propaganda and
political agitation we in theDSA can do.

(52:39):
Our very small part for verysmall part.
Um, I think it would be veryimportant, uh, and a very, uh,
uh, a long needed step.
In this country to have a forceon the left that actually said,
you don't have democracy.
We can get democracy.
Um, and here's, you know, whatit would actually mean to do

(53:00):
that.
Thank you, Luke.
And thank you to everyone who'ssubmitting questions.
I'm going to go ahead and openit with the first question,
which is by Daniel W for eitherJerry or Luke.
So I'll give it to both of you.
Do you think it's possible toachieve a socialist democracy
without universal and equalsuffrage?
If so, how?

(53:21):
Luke, do you want to start usoff?
Um, I don't know how it would bepossible to achieve a socialist
democracy without universal andequal suffrage.
When I say that, it doesn'tnecessarily mean that I think we

(53:42):
can peacefully vote our way intofundamentally changing the
economy of this country.
Um, but I don't understand howwe could democratically change
society.
without universal and equalsuffrage.
Um, so the struggle to changesociety goes hand in hand with

(54:06):
the struggle for democracy.
You can't, uh, impose a changeof society on two people.
Um, nor though can you pretendas if The existing political
system, the existingconstitution allows us to, in
any operable way, changesociety.

(54:30):
Um, I'm sort of reminded of whatEngel said, I think, in his
critique of the Erfurt program,which I might have alluded to.
Where it basically says Look,it's a problem that y'all aren't
saying the key thing here, whichis that this is not a democratic
republic, there's no way to workthrough this system.

(54:52):
And it's also a key thing thaty'all are forgetting that trying
to change society will createmassive amounts of rupture and
chaos and so on and so forth.
Um, but no, you need, you needdemocracy.
Thanks Luke.
Jerry, do you want to answerthis question?

(55:12):
Yeah, I mean, I would sayuniversal mass voting rights are
part of what we want insocialism.
Uh, I think actually one way wecan approach this question is
getting rid of the electoralcollege.
I don't think we could movetowards like a constitutional
convention at this time, thebalance of forces are totally

(55:35):
against us, but getting rid ofthe electoral college would be a
major step.
And it's one that's already beenrather broadly discussed even in
the liberal mass media, and hasrather broad support even within
sectors of the ruling class.
So I think, uh, that's a battlethat can be engaged and

(56:00):
necessary, but obviously votingis one tool in the toolbox and
all the democratic rights thatwe have protests, meetings,
press, speech, all that has tobe used.
And, uh, the question ofviolence is really up to the
ruling class.

(56:21):
Uh, and, uh, I believe of coursepeople have the right to self
defense.
Thank you, Jerry.
All right.
Our next question is fromClipsy.
In his book, An EconomicalInterpretation of the
Constitution of the UnitedStates, Charles Beale reviews
the evidence and finds that lessthan 160, 000 white men make up

(56:47):
less than 1 percent of thepopulation participated in
ratifying the Constitution.
No person alive today has had ahand in shaping or altering it.
Should we defend this documentas a democratic charter for the
government, or would it makesense to agitate for a
replacement shaped by massparticipation, as was recently
done in Cuba?
Jerry, do you want to start thisone?

(57:09):
Yeah, we need to change theConstitution.
Absolutely.
There's aspects of theConstitution I think we should
keep.
Bill of Rights.
We should keep that.
Uh, but, uh, the time to fightover, uh, rewriting of the
Constitution or re foundation ofAmerican democracy Is when you

(57:29):
have a socialist, uh, solidsocialist majority consolidated
leadership.
Um, I think we should look atChile recently.
Um, for some lessons where youhad mass support for a new
constitution, the left went intoit and came out with something
that got roundly defeated.
I mean, that was a huge defeatfor the left in Chile around

(57:53):
rewriting the constitution.
So, uh, if, if we try to use itin some mass slogan or mass
organizing tool today, rewritingthe constitution, no, I don't
agree with that because thebalance of forces are totally
not in our favor.
The right.
It's already organizing forrewriting the Constitution, and

(58:13):
if we go into some process withthat, there's a good ability
we'll lose.
Can we raise up the question ofexpanding democracy and
rewriting the Constitution?
Yeah, you can do that in termsof education and propaganda, but
I don't see it as a mass issue.
Beyond this, uh, idea of, uh,getting rid of the electoral

(58:37):
college that has already beenout there as a mass issue.
Thank you, Jerry.
Luke, you can go ahead.
Sure.
Um, I think getting rid of theelectoral college would be
great.
And while we're at it, we canadd in all the other very
undemocratic things.
I don't, I don't think we needto start there.

(58:58):
Um, as I said, I really likedthe idea and I'm very curious.
Um, and I think.
DSA should, uh, really exploreways, um, of agitating, uh, or
developing forms of propagandaaround this question of choice.
And when have you ever actuallyhad, uh, the opportunity to

(59:19):
decide, uh, the laws, uh, thatfundamentally shape your life,
uh, in ways that you can'talways appreciate, uh, but are
the ultimate system of makinglaws totally.
Um, So if the right is talkingabout it, and I don't think

(59:40):
they're talking about it in theway we are, they're talking
about it in a very truncatedform.
All the more reason that weshould talk about it too.
Uh, if the right is talkingabout making a new constitution,
then we should talk about makinga constitution.
If they weren't talking aboutmaking a constitution, we should
still talk about making a newconstitution.

(01:00:00):
You know, the time is alwaysright.
Uh, I think to talk about a lackof democracy.
Point out why there is nodemocracy.
And then if the right has someidea about what they think
democracy is, we poke holes inthat too.
Uh, just the same way that wepoke holes in the same
conception of whatever thedemocratic party, uh, thinks is

(01:00:22):
democracy.
And then on Chile, I'm not soconvinced that Chile really has
much to offer us.
You know, the fact that theyreject one and then they reject
the second one.
You know, maybe folks 10 yearsdown the line will look at this
and say, Oh, it bodes aparticular direction.
But I think we just focus herein the United States and think

(01:00:45):
about what we need in thiscountry.
Thank you, Luke.
All right.
Now the next question.
I'm gonna have two questions.
One for Luke, one for Jerry.
So first, I'm going to startwith Luke.
How do you reconcile Mark'soriginal push for the battle for
democracy with his laterskepticisms following the
crushing of the Paris Commune,namely that co opting ready made

(01:01:08):
state machinery is ineffective?
Yeah, that's a great question.
Um, because if you look at the,or what would you call it,
historiography of Marx orwhatnot, um, the traditional
opinion is, well, Marx has acertain conception of the state,

(01:01:29):
and then he looks at the ParisCommune, and the Paris Commune
kind of changes everything.
Um, I don't think it does.
You know, uh, the quote that Itook from Angles there is from,
uh, a letter that he wrote tosomeone in 1892, just a year
before he dies or so.

(01:01:49):
Marx and I, for 40 years, havebeen repeating ad nauseum what
we need as a democraticrepublic.
Okay.
Um, the same point being thatMarx, uh, in the demands of the
German Communist Party, uh, thathe writes, oh, what's that, 1850
or so, a lot of that has theexact same things that he
praises in the 19th century.

(01:02:11):
Paris commune.
Um, so this idea of kind ofsmashing the state and
establishing the, um,dictatorship of the proletariat,
so to think, um, I don't thinkthat that in any way, uh,
disqualifies this idea of ademocratic state at its core,
uh, being one with theunicameral legislature elected

(01:02:33):
by universal and equal suffrage.
It's from that position that youcan do all those other things
that he discusses.
Um, or I should say that hewants to see.
In the Paris commune, because,of course, he's embellishing
that whole thing, too, in manyways, uh, in order to really
draw out what he'd like to seedone.

(01:02:53):
All right.
Thank you, Luke.
So, the next question is goingto be for Jerry, um, and it is,
it says, Jerry, I agree with theclear distinction with
bourgeoisie democracy in theUnited States and the neo
fascism, neo absurd in Chile.
However, it's, of course, worthnoting that U.
S.
involvement in the military coupthat created a fascist Chile.
Does or should the suppressionby the United States of usually

(01:03:16):
anti capitalist democraciesaround the world undermine the
extent of democracy we enjoyhere at home?
Go ahead, Jerry.
Yeah, the United States is animperialist, racist,
patriarchal, violent society.
The American bourgeoisie is allthose things.

(01:03:37):
And we've always known that.
That's why we're socialists.
That's why we want to get rid ofcapitalism and build a socialist
society.
Uh, as I've been arguing hereall along, that's the main
aspect of, uh, the historicdialectic that we're facing.
Uh, the U.

(01:03:57):
S.
imperialism, and Europeanimperialism as well, has always
had a fascist face, uh, in theglobal south.
Uh, and of course that, uh, Ispart of the character of what
they are.
Again, uh, you know, thechickens came home to roost with

(01:04:20):
the Nazis and Mussolini and thefascists in World War II, and
the chickens are coming home toroost now, both in the United
States and Europe again, becausethe right is on the march, the
fascist right is on the march,and of course, they have plenty
of experience, uh, With theirlong history of colonialism and

(01:04:41):
imperialism throughout theworld.
Um, no better seen in thehorrific, uh, violence that the,
uh, Israeli government iscarrying on in Gaza at this very
moment, and what Russianimperialists are doing in
Ukraine.
So, um, uh, I'm not arguing thatAmerica is some wonderful

(01:05:03):
democratic society.
What I'm saying is thatDemocracy is one aspect of the
society that we live in.
We use those rights every day toorganize a fuller democracy and
for a socialist future.
Awesome.
Thank you, Jerry.

(01:05:23):
And thank you to everyone whosubmitted questions.
We can't, we don't have time toget to them all, but they were
really good.
So I'm going to allow both ofyou guys to go into closing
statements.
I'll start with Jerry for fiveminutes.
Go ahead, Jay.
Uh, oh, I've really enjoyed thediscussion.
Actually, Luke and I haveperiodically talked about this
stuff for about two years nowwhen he was in Chicago.

(01:05:45):
Now he's in Oakland.
I've always enjoyed it.
Um, I think it's a reallyimportant discussion for us on
the left to have.
Uh, and, uh, as Luke opened upsaying democracy is, you know,
the most important questionconfronting us.
I fully agree with that.
And I think, uh, when you saythere is no democracy, uh, it

(01:06:08):
leads, uh, logically to the, uh,sort of, uh, positions that Luke
and I have on the election.
where our sort of realdifferences come to the fore,
where if you have no democracy,then there's really no
difference between Trump andBiden that we have to worry
about, because America isn't ademocracy.

(01:06:32):
But if you think that there is ademocracy in the United States,
that there are clear differencesbetween these two camps, And
they, and having one or theother in power will make a big
difference in terms of ourability to organize.
I'm not saying that you vote forBiden because he's a good guy or

(01:06:55):
anything like that.
We see what his nature is, whathe's doing.
Uh, what we're voting for iswhat are the political
conditions that allow us to bestorganize.
And it's really that, that's thequestion.
And the political conditionsthat allow us to best organize

(01:07:18):
are the most open conditions,the ones that, uh, where we can
use the existing democraticrights that we have.
To their fullest extent to pushforward the socialist movement
and the anti capitalistmovement.
And to me, it's clearly, uh,that we'll have greater

(01:07:39):
flexibility under a democraticadministration than a neo
fascist administration.
Thanks.
Thanks, Jerry.
Go ahead, Luke.
Luke, you're, uh, you're, uh, onmute.

(01:08:00):
Thanks, Jerry.
That would help.
Just to echo what Jerry said,too, in the opening.
I've, I've always enjoyedtalking with Jerry and, um, you
know, learn a lot from, from ourconversations.
Um, a few things, though.
This desire for a socialistrevolution, um, that folks talk
about.

(01:08:21):
I do still want to draw adistinction between a socialist
revolution and a democraticrevolution.
Because I think it does impacthow we kind of conceptualize the
future in a certain sense, andthe same way that it Does impact

(01:08:43):
how we talk to people and whatwe say to people like kinds of
conversations we have and so onum, so I would argue that we
want a democratic revolution inorder to Create the position
from which we can Decide whatkind of society we want to live

(01:09:06):
in to decide what kind ofeconomy we want to have We don't
have that ability right now.
Now, of course in the lead up toall of that There are, of
course, going to be people whowill be arguing for what kind of
economy we should have, uh, andwhat the future should be.
And I would support folks who,during that movement, in that

(01:09:30):
process, during that constituentassembly, whatever, however you
want to conceive of it, aresaying we need to take X, Y, and
Z steps in order to socializethe economy.
Okay.
But I think our primary task isto build a democratic movement
that's actually saying, hold on,we don't even have the ability
to decide any of that right now.

(01:09:54):
And so then the questionbecomes, are we going to build
that movement by telling people,uh, what the future society
could look like?
Or what the economy needs to bein that future society, or do
you build that movement bylooking at the existing society
and saying, you don't have anycontrol, you don't have the

(01:10:17):
ability to decide, right, wrong,good, bad, doesn't matter.
You can't make it happen.
So there are, of course, goingto be people who are going to be
talking about socialism.
forever.
That's fine.
The left, though, has not beentalking about the constitution
and about democracy.
And that is the first obstacleto overcome.

(01:10:38):
So I really feel like that's,uh, that's our goal.
It's to have that ability tochoose, you know, to kind of use
some of the language of SDS, theability to, uh, decide the
conditions that Shape your lifeor maybe to use kind of more
contemporary Republicanlanguage, the ability to not be
dominated.

(01:10:59):
The other thing I want to bringup just to end here is an
interesting book, um, by thesetwo guys who, um, I always want
to say their last names areLevitsky and Ziblatt.
I've said them so many times nowthat I make up last names for
them.
In 2018, they wrote a bookcalled, um, How Democracies Die.

(01:11:20):
Uh, and this was Obama'sfavorite book in 2018, one of
his favorite books.
And Biden cited it as one of thereasons that he ran for the
presidency.
They basically said, um, Trumpbecame president despite the
guardrails of our constitution.
People need to kind of learn howto play by the rules.
We need to kind of strengthenthe respect that we have for the

(01:11:42):
constitution.
That's how we'll defeat Trump.
And then you flash forward fiveyears and they come out with
this book called tyranny of theminority, where they basically
say, huh, it kind of looks likeTrump got into office, not
despite the constitution, butbecause of the constitution that
allows a minoritarian movementsto.
Take power, obstruct the system,stop popular legislation, so on

(01:12:08):
and so forth.
So, if we are concerned aboutstarting, excuse me, about
stopping an authoritarian MAGAmovement, so on and so forth, as
the Democrats claim to be, Thenwe should argue for a democratic
constitution.
If the Democrats cared aboutstopping Trump, they would argue

(01:12:31):
for a democratic constitution.
They would read a book by twoHarvard, uh, law professors.
You know, I only laugh becauseit seems.
So, uh, so kind of silly in thatway, but that's also what I want
to bring into this conversationis okay.
How do we, how do we stop badthings?

(01:12:52):
If that's really our goal, uh,well, it's only through
democracy, right?
Democracy would allow us toenact the reforms we need.
But then actually allow us to gofurther into socialism.
And then, of course, if you wantto talk about democracy, you'd
have to talk about the U.
S.
Constitution.

(01:13:15):
Thank you, Luke, and thank you,Jerry.
So that concludes our event.
Um, thank you so much fromeveryone at the National
Political Education Committee.
We are so glad that everyoneturned out to this event.
Your questions are really great.
Thank you to both of thepanelists.
Um, I have dropped the link tothe public Slack.
In the chat.
So basically we have our slackchannel for impact is open so

(01:13:37):
you can join and we can keepthis conversation and debate
going on slack.
Stay tuned because impact willalso be having an event next
month.
I'm working with the transrights bodily autonomy campaign
commission as well.
So stay tuned for that.
And with that, this event isover.
So thank you everyone for comingout and solidarity.