Oberlin 2018: Part 2

For Part 1, see here.

John Studer and Terry Evans author a second long piece about the recently completed Oberlin Conference. It covers a grab bag of different topics, and so comes off as more disjointed than their first article. A lot of it isn't worth commenting on: they're still on the US lost the Cold War shtick, to which they now add that the Cold War wasn't really about defeating the Soviet Union anyway. These ideas are just silly.

I was hoping this second article would shed some light on the status and future of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). It didn't. All I can do is read between the lines. We'll get to that in a minute--first some politics

Under the heading "Liberals attack workers' rights," Studer & Evans cite two pundits--first, the ever popular Paul Krugman, and then the more egregious Bryan Van Norden.

Mr. Krugman maintains the country is being led astray not so much by Mr. Trump as by his followers: the so-called deplorables. They've earned that moniker, in his opinion, and if they're not out-voted in the next election "America as we know it is finished." The Militant takes this as an insult to working people, who indeed built this country and have every right to their opinions.

In a limited sense I agree with Mr. Krugman. Trump's supporters (many of whom are workers) are not being radicalized (as Studer & Evans imply) but are instead being flattered and entertained. Which doesn't mean they're behaving irrationally. But Krugman is so certain of his own judgement and moral virtue that he can't imagine that anybody who disagrees with him could possibly have an honest opinion--they must instead be either crooks or dupes.

This very intolerance and willful ignorance is what makes Krugman so obnoxious. He thinks he knows better what is in people's best interest than the people themselves.

The very title of Mr. Van Norden's piece gives the game away: The Ignorant Do Not Have a Right to an Audience. Needless to say, Mr. Van Norden is a pin-headed academic at Vassar College and obviously does not get out very much. He needs to go talk to people from other walks of life. He'll learn that people know more about their own lives than he does.

Neither Misters Krugman nor Van Norden have the foggiest clue what Trump is all about. The Militant's criticism is right on the money.

Under the heading "Women's rights and working class," Mary-Alice Waters makes the following unbelievable claim.

The subjugation of women “isn’t inherent to human nature,” Waters said. Its origins aren’t in conflicts between men and women but “entwined with the way communal structures of preclass society disintegrated. 

"Subjugation" is surely the wrong word--women are not always or even mostly subjugated. They didn't die by the tens of thousands in the trenches of World War I, for example. But the point is taken--women's roles in society are very different from that of men. Sometimes they're subjugated.

But it is at least partly "inherent to human nature." Given the evolutionary importance of reproduction, and given that men and women play different roles in that process, it is inconceivable that there aren't biological differences in body structure, brain structure, personality, and so on down the line. And in fact, there is--male and female bodies, brains, and hormones differ. By a lot.

One trivial example that crossed my radar screen recently makes the point. Of the hundred top chess grandmasters in the world, 99 of them are men. (Lone exception is Judit Polgar.) I won't claim to know why this is, but surely part of the explanation is biological. There is no way that socialization or male prejudice by themselves could have generated such an asymmetry.

So what's the future of the Party? Off hand they mention that a "year ago the SWP had just begun rebuilding industrial fractions." That's news to me--maybe I missed something? For the past many years the Party has just been "talking socialism," and abstaining from any actual "class struggle." I guess that's changed.

Otherwise the efforts of the Party are only briefly described.

These ranged from joining strikes and others workers’ and union battles, to activities supporting working people in Puerto Rico combating the devastation of U.S. colonial rule; from campaigning in workers’ neighborhoods with the Militant and books by revolutionary leaders; to participating in book fairs in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, the Philippines, and Cuba — and much more, as described each week in this working-class newspaper.

Beyond this is a short description of efforts at Pathfinder Press, led by Holly Harkness. Two new comrades are introduced to us--elsewhere in the issue the death of Wendy Lyons is reported. So net recruitment is one.

Why the paucity of news? One look at this picture (accompanying Studer & Evans' article) explains a lot.


Mary-Alice Waters (inset), despite dying her hair (!?), still looks every bit the septuagenarian she is. Her audience seems only slightly younger. Indeed, I think they average about my age--66. Sorry, but these are not the cadre who are about to rebuild American unions. Not gonna happen.

Let me take this opportunity to comment on the new on-line look of The Militant. Generally I like it. The paper definitely needed a facelift. There is a lot of useful information readily available, including copies of the International Socialist Review from the 1970s. I'll probably take a look at those.

Two small quibbles, and then a big one. I wish the issue date were more prominently displayed on the home page. One would more easily know what one is reading. And then the "Features" column on the right of the home page should be more clearly labeled. It does NOT contain articles from the current issue--that's very confusing to the novice visitor. That said, it's nice to have that Features column there.

The big complaint is that it's still a newspaper. All a visitor can do is read--there are no comments, no likes or dislikes, no space for guest commentary (from outside the movement), and apart from the very tightly curated Letters to the Editor, no room for any feedback at all. It's as if they were afraid of something.

So it's not a webpage. It's not an organizing tool. It's not a way to get people involved. It's not the center of a thriving community. Instead it is Truth from on High--all you can do is read it and sigh I sure am glad they understand everything!

Further Reading:

• Mary-Alice Waters' Religious View of History
• Iranian Politics as Group Therapy
• Trotskyism & New Media

Oberlin, 2018

A second post on the conference can be found here.

Here is the banner above Jack Barnes' lectern at the 2018 Active Workers Conference, held in Oberlin, OH, June 14-16. (The Militant's account is authored by Terry Evans and John Studer.)

It nearly duplicated the proclamation decorating last year's conclave; only the phrase "Build the Labor Movement" has been added.

For the Party (Socialist Workers Party, SWP) sees a revival in the American labor movement, citing the wave of teachers' strikes last Spring. I think they exaggerate the significance. While the strikes won some pay raises in several states, there is no broader legacy. That moment has passed, besides which the last thing the world needs are stronger public employee unions!

As I said in my Oberlin, 2017 post, I have absolutely no idea how the Party can go any "deeper" into the working class (which, for the most part, doesn't even exist anymore). They've been trying that trick for 40+ years now, to no noticeable effect. I think they need a new slogan.

As for the "rulers' deepening political crisis," count me skeptical. Yes--doubtless the mainstream media, along with many pundits whose opinions I otherwise respect, are bemoaning our increasing polarization. For which there is at least some evidence, such as the personal threats and harassment against Trump administration officials.

Then again, I recall one of my first political acts, standing with a large crowd (mob?) outside a hotel in downtown Portland where Richard Nixon was spending the night during a visit to our city. We shouted slogans like "Hey tricky Dick, you better run you better hide, we're still united on the other side!" That seems hardly more civil than anything directed toward Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

And is the assassination attempt against Congressman Scalise any worse than the more successful efforts of the Weather Underground or Black Panthers? I don't think so.

So I don't buy the increasing polarization or near civil war scenarios. This is just politics as usual. The difference is the 24 hour news cycle, cell phone cameras, twitter feeds and social media generally. Everything gets all blown out of proportion. If anything--to borrow from Tyler Cowen's book--we've all become much more complacent.

Get past the slogans, however, and the Party's positions are a lot more interesting. I'm astonished with how much I agree with them! Indeed, remove some rhetorical flourishes and it's almost as if I'd written Mr. Barnes' speech myself.

For example,

The prospects opened by the Singapore summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean head of state Kim Jong Un, which concluded two days before the SWP gathering, are good for the working class, Barnes said — not just in the U.S. and Korea, but in Japan, China, and across the Pacific and the world.

Of course that's true--only a Democrat full of sour grapes could disagree.

Mr. Barnes suggests the President is following the SWP's advice.

Trump has also raised withdrawing some of the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea — a proposal he first mooted during the 2016 elections — in exchange for the North Korean government taking steps to dismantle its nuclear missile program. The SWP calls, Barnes said, “For a Korean Peninsula, Japan and surrounding skies and waters free of nuclear weapons.”

 Beyond Korea, I'll take partial issue with this statement:

The current White House, Barnes said, has ceased acting on the false premise, one that has guided the last several Democratic and Republican administrations alike, that “the U.S. rulers can dominate the world unopposed in the mistaken belief they won the Cold War.” While Washington maintains massive military superiority over other world powers, it can no longer simply impose U.S. capital’s will through bloody wars — wars that have now gone on, from Syria to Afghanistan, for more than 17 years. Instead, the current administration is seeking to advance U.S. imperialist interests by moving to end some longstanding conflicts and pull in its horns to a degree, at least for now.

I agree with Mr. Barnes that the US is withdrawing from world conflict, and is no longer willing to act as the world's policeman. But I object to the idea that this is from a position of weakness. We supported our allies during the Cold War because we needed them. Now that we've won that conflict we no longer require their services--they'll have to fend for themselves. Then, as Peter Zeihan points out, fracking changes everything. We're no longer dependent on Persian Gulf oil, and accordingly our willingness to compromise with Iran about nuclear weapons is greatly diminished.

But that's a minor point. Outcome of the Cold War conflict notwithstanding, Mr. Barnes describes US policy reasonably accurately.

The Party's account of the situation in Syria is confusing, but then Syria is intrinsically confusing. They are certainly right that Russia and Iran are not natural allies. Then again, Russia and Israel aren't natural allies either, as Mr. Barnes seems to claim. Surely Israel and Turkey have a common interest in Syria, and they'd share cause with the USA but for the Kurds, whom Americans staunchly support.

But the Kurds are a Persian people, whom Turkey regards as a fifth column. I think eventually the US will throw the Kurds under the bus and reestablish a strong alliance with Turkey--as a counterweight to Russia. Which pushes the Russians back into an alliance with Iran. And then the Egyptians and the Saudis,...??

Oh, alright. The whole thing is a headscratcher. The Party's account is no worse than any other. All I can say for certain is that Bashar al-Assad--the progenitor of the entire disaster, and for a long time the key to its resolution--is today irrelevant. He is entirely at the mercy of whatever foreign power holds sway over his country.

The article devotes only one sentence to Israel.

Washington also sent President Trump’s son-in-law and White House Adviser Jared Kushner to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in late June to discuss the next stages in advancing its Mideast peace plan, Barnes said.

I'll take it as an opportunity to remind readers that the Party's position on Israel is now quite sensible. They have sharply distanced themselves from openly antisemitic groups like Hamas. Instead--like me--they understand that a better life for Palestinians does not imply the complete destruction of Israel. Indeed, there are some obvious win-win solutions for that conflict, and it is only groups like Hamas that refuse to consider them.

That brings us to the final paragraph:

Despite the U.S. rulers’ intentions, these moves — from Korea to Moscow to the Middle East — can have positive results for the working class and toilers, helping to open much-needed political space to organize; to gain class-struggle experience against their respective capitalist ruling classes; to strengthen ties of workers solidarity across imperialist-stoked national and religious divisions; and to take steps toward the building of new working-class leadership.

I don't know what that's about. I think it's meaningless Trotsky-talk. Unlike Mr. Barnes, I have no telepathic connection to "U.S. rulers", and I can't tell you what their intentions are. But if you get rid of phrases like that, and other words like class struggle, imperialist, working class, etc., which collectively add nothing to the conversation, I think the Party's analysis of world affairs corresponds closely to mine.

Further Reading:

• Iranian Politics as Group Therapy
• Teachers' Strikes: The Difference a River Makes
• Strikes, Janus & Amazon
• Is the SWP Moving Right?

Affirmative Action

This article is inspired in part by a piece by Louis Proyect, here. We reach the same conclusion, but his reasoning seems illogical to me.

I've never been a huge fan of affirmative action. True, I never strongly objected to a racial preference for African-Americans. At least in that case one could justify the policy as a remedy for past discrimination. My problems begin mainly when it extends well beyond African-Americans to include other minorities and--especially--women. Hispanics, for example, were never enslaved or put-upon any more than any other ethnic group--e.g., the Irish. Women are completely undeserving of the benefit.

On net, I think affirmative action is harmful at non-elite institutions like mine. The resulting feminization of college life diminishes the institution. (Note that at elite institutions the gender balance is rigorously kept at 50/50.) And partly because of affirmative action, identity politics now dominates campus life to a destructive degree.

So now an organization called Students for Fair Admissions is suing Harvard University for discriminating against Asian-Americans. And discrimination it certainly is. Based on test scores only, Asians should make up 43% of Harvard's freshman class, yet they're only granted 19% of the spots. By contrast, African-Americans get 10%, vs. only 1% in a test-only world.

Looks damning, doesn't it? It is often compared to the similar discrimination against Jews in the 1920s and 1930s, in that case giving a strong preference to gentile white students. Yet I don't think Harvard was antisemitic back in the 1930s, and I don't think they're anti-Asian today. In both cases I believe they acted for perfectly valid, honest reasons.

Harvard--and all other elite institutions--strives for a meritocracy. As The Hill points out,

Imagine a world where every student has their SAT score emblazoned on their forehead. Imagine one where a person’s worth is determined by their ACT score.

Indeed, merit based solely on test scores would be a very desiccated, narrow standard. No real college or university will want to use such a system (Cal Tech perhaps being an exception). Unsurprisingly, they come up with a lot of other relevant criteria--legacy students, athletics, special circumstances, and, sotto voce, ethnicity. Which leads to a conversation--just what is merit, anyway? And how is it supposed to be judged?

I can tell you how Harvard judges merit: by estimating how a student will enhance Harvard's brand. At very least Harvard depends on alumni contributions; I've read that Asian alums are relatively chintzy (don't know if that's true). Yankee blue bloods from New England are a safer bet.

And more, the College wants to maximize its influence on the larger culture--Asians, only 6% of the population, will never contribute 43% of the influence, no matter what the test scores say. Blacks, meanwhile, despite being only 12% of the population, have a disproportionate effect on our political, musical and cultural life.

That last paragraph suggests that Harvard wants a student body that roughly mirrors the nation--that's not affirmative-action-speak, but instead brass-tacks reality for a school that wants to lead American society. Of course they're inconsistent: they ignore the Scots-Irish, have relatively little use for Catholics, and frankly, disproportionately preference Asians. But over all, the goals of Harvard and affirmative action are roughly aligned.

I have no problem with Harvard's admissions policy. Indeed, I agree with the headline in The Hill:

Every college — even Harvard — has a right to build its own community.

This, of course, is simply an assertion of the First Amendment right to free association.

And that brings us to Barry Goldwater justifying his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights bill.

I wish to make myself perfectly clear. The two portions of this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action in the area of so-called "public accommodations" and in the area of employment--to be precise, Titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas.

Mr. Goldwater was among very few Republicans to vote against the measure, and of course he was indelibly tarred as a racist because of that, despite making himself "perfectly clear." And let's face it--the times were against him. Jim Crow was such an egregious offense against the Constitution that no fair-minded American could oppose either fair accommodations or fair employment provisions.

And yet, Mr. Goldwater turns out to be right. Today institutions--and not just Harvard--are denied freedom of association, and are forced into all kinds of legal contortions to accomplish their perfectly reasonable (and non-racist) goals. The irony is that Harvard is trying to benefit--for its own reasons, and not out of charity--the very people whom the civil rights movement sought to protect.

Ideally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be repealed (at least the offending sections) and First Amendment Rights will be restored. Fat chance.

There are plenty of other government agencies, that like the Civil Rights Act were a good idea at the time, have long since outlived their usefulness. A good example is the USDA inspection regime. At the turn of the last Century, meat sold in stores was of abysmal quality. Refrigeration was rare and expensive, so much of it was rotten. Then it was often adulterated with chalk--adding to the weight without adding to the nutrition. Finally, the meat processing plants were filthy, as documented by Upton Sinclair's novel, The Jungle.

No wonder government regulators stepped in.

But today they should step out again--the whole inspection regime is ridiculous. Refrigeration is today both cheap and ubiquitous--no consumer will buy meat improperly kept. Beyond which social media keeps an hourly watch on any grocery or restaurant selling meat--the slightest offense, or even rumor of an offense, will bring instant retribution. The annual USDA inspection adds nothing to consumer safety while contributing significantly to costly bureaucracy.

I feel the same about municipal restaurant inspectors. Again, social media does a much better job at enforcing restaurant cleanliness than any semi-annual inspection regime. All the latter does is prevent poor people from selling street food, and provide many opportunities for corrupt income to the bureaucrats involved. I suggest getting rid of the entire enterprise.

Harvard's goals can in no way be considered racist--their very self-interest prevents that. There are perhaps 100,000 students in the USA in a given year who can benefit from a Harvard education. These can be identified by test scores by rendering applicants below a certain minimum ineligible. Beyond that minimum, I doubt a specific test score makes much difference. Given that Harvard only admits 2,000 students, surely they can find enough qualified members from any ethnic minority they want. Unlike the implicit premise of the Students for Fair Admissions, Harvard isn't accepting any unqualified students.

So I generally oppose Affirmative Action. I even oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964! But I do support Harvard's legitimate claim to freedom of association, and believe they should be allowed to admit whomever they want for whatever reason they want. I hope the courts reject the claims of Students for Fair Admissions.

Further Reading:

• Book Review: The Rise & Fall of American Growth
• The Demise of the Academy
• Why the Academy Sucks

Trade Wars

My friends over at Socialist Action (SA) deserve credit for penning a serious editorial about a potential trade war. To the paper's credit the article contains real facts and arguments--it is not just a throwaway rhetorical piece. Serious it may be, but it is wrong, as the headline proves: Working people have no stakes in a trade war. It deserves closer analysis.

Here, in bullet points, are what I see as the article's main takeaway messages.

• The US economy is in relative decline as other countries (notably China) have grown market share.
• Trump represents a segment of the ruling class that wants to reverse that decline.
• Trump also represents union bureaucrats who want to bring back old-fashioned, blue-collar jobs.
• Globalization leads to a "declining rate of profit" for capitalists, which is the ultimate source of all their difficulties.
• Capitalists respond to the "declining rate of profits" by taking out of their workers' hides.
• Or alternatively, capitalists try to restrain profit rates from declining by rolling back globalization, which is where Trump comes in.

The errors SA makes are common to all Marxists, so it is worth considering them in detail. There are fundamentally two things wrong with their argument.

1)  "Declining rate of profit," in SA's usage, is just wrong, if not completely meaningless.

2)  They completely ignore the consumer in their analysis. Since most consumers are workers, the major benefit to workers from globalization is entirely unrecognized.

There are two ways to measure profits. The most common way (used in the stock market) is Return on Investment (ROI--often expressed as the price/earnings ratio). Investors want to make a risk-adjusted return on their investment, and won't put money into a project where that's unlikely to pan out. There is no evidence that "profit" in this sense is declining at all. Indeed, the recently famous economist, Thomas Piketty, maintains that inflation-adjusted ROI has remained roughly constant at about 5% over the past couple centuries.

Indeed, there can't be any secular decline in ROI. If profits go down, then the stock price goes down, which lowers the total capital invested thereby raising the ROI. By this measure, a steadily "declining rate of profit" implies continuously declining stock prices, which has obviously not been the case.

The alternative definition of "profit", which is the definition I think SA actually intends, is as a fraction of operating cost, also known as profit margin. Margins vary widely from industry to industry and from company to company. Some companies--e.g., Walmart--have very low margins, but then make it up on volume. Indeed, since its very founding Walmart has set its margins at 3%. which is only pennies on the dollar. But multiplied over $500 billion in revenue it adds up to a lot--about $15 billion. Walmart's margins are fixed--they have been neither growing nor declining since the company was founded. It's one of their core business principles.

Other industries--like pharmaceuticals and technology companies--have very high margins. In the case of pharmaceuticals it is because research costs are very high and also unpredictable--the high margins compensate for risk. Apple, on the other hand, charges $1000 for an iPhone because they can get away with it.

There is no long term decline in profit margins. There can't be. If the margin gets too small then capitalists won't invest any more money in that industry. American television manufacturing is an example where the margins shrank to zero--and televisions are no longer manufactured in the US.

So I don't know what SA means by "declining rate of profit." I think they take a phrase from Marx completely out of context and then repeat it endlessly as though it actually meant something. But it's just a rhetorical flourish--nothing more.

More substantively, SA describes the alleged demerits of capitalism in great detail, while completely ignoring any of the benefits.

In their desperate struggle to fight the falling rate of profit, capitalists try to reduce costs by attacking trade unions and workers’ rights, by attacking pay and benefit levels, by attacking general social benefits such as education, medical, and pension benefits, by refusing to accept any responsibility for the massive environmental damage caused by cutthroat capitalist competition, and by transferring production to low-wage, unregulated areas both within and outside their own countries.

This paragraph is approximately correct as far as it goes. (I'd take issue with the "massive environmental damage" phrase, but that's another topic.) It is true that capitalists are in "cutthroat competition," and will do what they can to gain an edge on their competitors by lowering costs, specifically the cost of labor.

But what SA doesn't tell us is what all those capitalists are competing for. They're competing for market share--i.e., they want to sell as many goods to as many people as possible. Every time the cash register rings at Walmart, shareholders pocket 3%. Of course they want that cash register to ring as often as possible.

The very definition of capitalism is a system that wants to maximize consumption--that's how capitalists earn money.

So take Walmart as an example. By sourcing their products in China they were able to lower their costs. Since margins are fixed at 3%, that means the savings are passed directly on to the customer in the form of lower prices. Here are the consequences--all of them good:

• Chinese manufacturing workers earn much more than they would back at the farm.
• Walmart employees--despite generally being low-skilled labor--earn higher wages and enjoy better working conditions than they would if they worked at the Mom & Pop down the street.
• Walmart's volumes increase, yielding more money for shareholders.
• Walmart's customers get more and better products at cheaper prices.

That last item is what SA neglects to mention, and it's a really important point. Walmart has substantially raised the standard of living of most Americans, especially those at the bottom of the income distribution. 

It's best expressed by Sam Walton's original mission statement: "to give common folks the chance to buy the same things as rich people." Their current motto--"Everyday Low Prices"--renews the promise to keep margins at 3% and to pass all cost savings on to the consumer. That's what Walmart does.

What's wrong with that? Only my Trotskyist friends can object, and they do so only by ignoring the huge difference that stores like Walmart make in improving people's lives.

Trump and my Trotskyist friends essentially agree about trade--they both see it as a zero-sum game. For Trump if the Chinese sell something to us, they win and we lose. For SA, if the Chinese sell something to us, capitalists win and everybody else loses. Both of you are wrong--trade is always win-win, and free trade is good thing!

That said, there is something awry when the US runs huge trade deficits for multiple decades in a row. Something is out of balance. While I think Trump is addressing it in the wrong way, he is quite right to bring the issue to the fore.

Further Reading:

• What Marxists Don't Understand About Economics
• Tradable vs. Non-Tradable Goods
• Book Review: Walmart

Mary-Alice Waters' Religious View of History

Photo from The Militant, June 11, 2018

Mary-Alice Waters gave a speech in Havana last April, where she described life in West Virginia as follows:

West Virginia today has the lowest median household income of all fifty states in the union save one, Mississippi. In only three states — Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Mississippi — do teachers earn less than in West Virginia. 

Measured by official US government figures that include so-called “discouraged workers” — those who haven’t been able to find a job for so long that they’ve temporarily given up — unemployment in West Virginia is one of the highest in the country: more than 10 percent in 2017. 

The state is a center of the drug addiction crisis in the US — it has the highest opioid overdose rate in the country.

Her Cuban audience must have been astonished. The people in the picture are well-dressed and well-fed far beyond the dreams of the average Cuban. They're rich enough that they can even afford bespoke t-shirts manufactured just for their union. It's hardly a picture of "carnage" and "devastation" as described by Ms. Waters.

Yet the impoverishment of the working class is not really what the example is supposed to prove. Ms. Waters asks this question:

Did the 2016 electoral victory of Donald Trump register a rise in racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and every other form of ideological reaction among working people in the US? Is that why tens of millions of workers of all races voted for him?

 And offers this answer:

The clearest and most demonstrative answer to the [above] question is being given right now from West Virginia to Oklahoma, from Kentucky to Arizona and beyond by tens of thousands of teachers and other public workers in states Trump carried by a large margin in 2016.

While I share Ms. Waters' opinion that Trump voters are no more racist than the rest of society, surely this picture doesn't make that case. It's a group of middle-aged, middle class, lily-white women demanding more bennies for themselves. West Virginia school children are 91% white. Please, Ms. Waters, tell us how this demonstrates the progressive virtues of the working class.

For all we know, the pictured ladies weren't Trump supporters at all, but are among the 27% of West Virginian voters who cast their ballots for Clinton, who counted teachers among her strongest supporters.

In my title I refer to Ms. Waters' view as "religious." I have hesitated using that term because my Trotskyist friends view it as both disrespectful and insulting--I don't wish to be either. And admittedly, the "religion" analogy doesn't fit perfectly. Trotskyists don't believe in supernatural beings, nor do they acknowledge any benefit in prayer. But (especially having just read and reviewed An Anxious Age) her piece is such a wonderful example of religious argument that it's hard to ignore.

Ms. Waters asks a second question:

Is a socialist revolution in the US really possible? Or are those like ourselves, who answer with an unhesitating “Yes,” a new variety of utopian socialist fools, however well meaning?

I'd replace the (needlessly demeaning) word "fools" with "believers," but otherwise I concur with that second choice.

We in the Socialist Workers Party are certainly among a small minority, even among those who call themselves socialists, who say without hesitation, “Yes, socialist revolution is possible in the United States.” And no liberating movement of millions can ever be imposed “from the outside” on any country.  

We say not only is socialist revolution in the US possible. Even more important, revolutionary struggles by the toilers are inevitable. They will be forced upon us by the crisis-driven assaults of the propertied classes — as we’ve just seen in West Virginia. And they will be intertwined, as always, with the example of the resistance and struggles of other oppressed and exploited producers around the globe.  

What is not inevitable is the outcome. That is where political clarity, organization, prior experience, discipline, and, above all, the caliber and experience of proletarian leadership are decisive.

What Ms. Waters describes here is her "railroad track" view of history. The historical train is moving relentlessly down the track, pulled inevitably forward by capitalist "contradictions" and "crises." Ahead lies a switch, and unless the switch is thrown we're headed off a cliff--toward catastrophe and World War III--eternal damnation. But, follow the "political clarity" of the Vanguard Party (i.e., the Socialist Workers Party) then redemption is at hand and we'll all live happily ever after.

It's a heaven and hell story, albeit with both outcomes existing here on this earth. The outcome depends only on the success of the Vanguard Party to throw the switch in time. While Ms. Waters is the movement's most explicit theologian, pretty much the same dogma is held by all the Trotskyist grouplets I cover, with slight denominational differences.

No religion is complete without a notion of sin. Sin is the one great empirical fact of all religion--all normal people (excepting only small children and psychopaths) understand that there is evil, both in the world and in the individual heart. Religion offers a path to defeat sin: in Hinduism it is reincarnation until Nirvana is reached; in Christianity it will happen when Christ comes again to redeem his world. And so on.

For Trotskyists, the principle sin is inequality--of income, education, health, immigration status, etc. All humans are created equal; any variation amongst us is the result of sin. As Ms. Waters puts it,

The point is that without understanding the devastation of the lives of working-class families in regions like West Virginia (and there are many more) — without understanding the vast increase since the 2008 financial crisis in class inequality, including the accelerating inequality within classes — you won’t be able to understand what’s happening in the United States.

Per Trotskyism, the important sins are not personal (e.g., thou shalt not commit adultery), but rather social (thou shalt not be a bigot). They are, in fact, the same sins put forward by Walter Rauschenbusch, the founder of  the social gospel. (See An Anxious Age for more about this.) Indeed, I'll suggest that the American Trotskyist movement depends as much on Rauschenbusch's thought as it does on Karl Marx.

Finally, please note the style of Ms. Waters' argument. She cites neither statistics nor any historical progression. Instead she lists a series of totemic events--the 1930s Teamsters' strike, the fight against Jim Crow, and the Vietnam-era antiwar movement. And, yes, the recent Red-State teachers' strikes, even though those are already yesterday's news.

There is no logical connection between any of these events, and they have only minimal impact on what happens today. Instead, they represent prophetic fulfillment. For just as Christians draw prophecy from the Old Testament pointing to the death and resurrection of Christ, Trotskyists prophesy from old labor history and the Russian Revolution. The working class really is awakening! The End Times are being foretold!

One can't criticize religion for being not true. I think even devout believers know in their heart of hearts that what they believe in isn't true. But, however false, religion is incredibly useful. It allows one to orient one's life, to find meaning, and to establish reassuring connections with a global community. It's all bound together by ritual and dogma.

Trotskyism isn't true, but unlike Christianity and other world religions, it also isn't particularly useful.

Further Reading:

• Book Review: An Anxious Age
• Sex and the Alpha Male
• Louis Proyect and the Pro-Poverty Girl

Book Review: An Anxious Age

In An Anxious Age, author Joseph Bottum writes as a Catholic and a sociologist, in this book both in equal measure. He's been criticized from both sides: a devout Catholic said he failed to emphasize the "saving power of faith in Jesus," while a retired IBM engineer faulted him for imagining "that religion has any reality at all."

Mr. Bottum's work survives his critics. He is determined to write a book of sociology rather than theology, while also vigorously defending the role of religion in the discipline. Indeed, he follows in the footsteps sociology's founders: Max Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism), Emile Durkheim (The Elementary Forms of Religious Life), and William James (The Varieties of Religious Experience) all obviously thought religion central to their study. He could also have included Karl Marx on that list, who didn't ignore religion either.

It is only latter day academic sociologists who have dismissed religion, obsessed as they are with race, class and gender. It is worth pointing out that Mr. Bottum has not been an academic, freeing him from the straitjacket of tenure and political correctness. Instead he has earned a living mostly as a journalist and author, distinguishing him in yet another way from his academic peers: the man is a superb writer!

Good writing certainly helps--a lot--but the book is not an easy read. It is incredibly dense and complicated. One shouldn't read it (as I did) on a Kindle--the dead tree version armed with a sharp pencil is a better way to approach this one.

The question Mr. Bottum asks is What happened to the mainline Protestant churches in America? Until about 1960 they dominated our society--the majority of people were churchgoing, and a Protestant ethos dominated our civil discourse. In those days (according to Jewish lore) Jews would become Episcopalians just so they could join the right country club.

But after 1960 it all fell apart. Not only would no Jew even consider becoming an Episcopalian today, the mainline denominations--Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, northern Baptists, Congregationalists--have simply fallen apart, their membership declining to nearly nothing. What happened to all those people? Where did they go?

Some of them became evangelicals--and for a while that was considered the main destination. A smaller group converted to Catholicism. But the majority didn't do either. Instead they lifted themselves out of the pews and ascended into (in their view) a more spiritual place, freed from the stifling and arbitrary rote of "organized religion." In a word, they became post-Protestants, a term Mr. Bottum shortens to poster children.

Who are these poster children, and what do they believe? Typically they hang tenuously on to the coattails of the upper middle class. Occasionally, as for some professors and journalists, that is true in terms of income. More commonly it is in their self-image as members of the elite--the opinion-makers of America. These people hold the right opinions, or as I would put it, they are the keepers of political correctness.

They are not really elite. They're actually just shlubs, generally with undistinguished, middle class jobs as teachers, counselors, civil servants, yoga instructors, etc., defined not so much by their social standing, but rather by a spiritual quality. They view themselves as morally superior--wiser and more perspicacious than others. Certainly more woke than the people they left behind in "organized religion," whom they regard as backward and uncivilized.

More accurately, elite isn't the right descriptor--instead they are members of the elect. They believe themselves to be redeemed, justified through their spirituality, and accomplished by renouncing six evils: bigotry, power, corruption, mass opinion, militarism, and oppression. To which one can add the despoliation of nature. Unlike the unwashed masses, the poster children are guaranteed salvation because of their enlightened attitudes and social activism.

Obviously there is a connection with New England Puritanism, but mediated through American history. Mr. Bottum calls this his the Erie Canal Thesis: that Protestant America descends from Puritanism, but was incubated and elaborated in Upstate New York--also known as the burnt over district. From this region originated the Millerites (today's Seventh-Day Adventists), Spiritualism (which remnant survives in Lily Dale, NY, a worthy tourist destination), and Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons), along with the women's suffrage movement (Seneca Falls, NY).

Most important in Mr. Bottum's story is Walter Rauschenbusch, son of German immigrants who later joined the faculty at the Rochester Theological Seminary, then part of the University of Rochester. If not the founder, he is at very least the leading exponent of the social gospel movement. Mr. Rauschenbusch is responsible for the six evil sins listed above, which form the core of his belief system.

Two things are apparent: first, though Mr. Rauschenbusch was a Christian, belief in Jesus was actually incidental to his theology. And second, none of the six evils depend on personal behavior--these are not individual sins, but rather social demons. By understanding and combating the six sins, the believer became a redeemed personality, and can be confident of salvation.

The poster children took the logical step and separated the social gospel from its historical faith. Gone was Jesus and the cross; only social sins remained, in recognition of which the person was redeemed. And so were born the post-Protestant elect. Their confidence in salvation is what makes them sound to other Americans as arrogant elitists.

The second half of Mr. Bottum's book is about a revived Catholic faith, the story of how Protestant converts and youthful, born Catholics rejuvenated the Church and responded to the leadership of Pope John Paul II. He dubs these the "swallows of Capistrano." This section is more complicated (I found the first chapter very slow going), and I can't summarize it briefly.

One theme is the failed alliance between Catholics and Evangelical Protestants. The latter brought energy and numbers in support for social conservatism, while the latter brought theological and philosophical depth. In particular, natural law philosophy allowed the opposition to abortion to be stated in secular terms.

The effort to fight legal abortion failed. (As, indeed, it had to. Mr. Bottum doesn't point out the successes of the movement.) The Catholic-Evangelical alliance never captured more than a sliver of the electorate, and acquired no purchase among cultural elites. That was the preserve of post-Protestants.

My criticism of Mr. Bottum's thesis stems from my recent reading of Albion's Seed and Colin Woodard's book (my review here), both on colonial immigration to America. While Mr. Bottum is correct that American Protestantism is not just recycled Puritanism, it remains overwhelmingly a Yankee institution. Like today's post-Protestant elect, the Puritans of yore aspired to build a City on a Hill. Think Barack Obama's favorite phrase (echoing Walter Rauschenbusch), "We can do better than that!" for a summation of poster child Puritanism.

Conversely, Evangelicals are over-represented among the Scots-Irish of Appalachia. Yes, they were originally Presbyterians, but I infer from Albion's Seed that religion was less important to them than it was for other American cultures. Their worship style and theology really hasn't changed all that much. In this case I think Mr. Bottum overstates the decline of Protestant churches.

In summary, I think the poster children are more a Yankee phenomenon than representative of America generally. And the rise of Evangelicalism is as much to do with a simple renaming of Appalachian religion than anything new under the sun.

I think Mr. Bottum is right to bring religion back into sociology. What he says is really interesting. I'm too old to read hard books that are poorly written. I did read this book--from cover to cover. It's a beautiful book and well worth your time. Make sure you sharpen your pencil.

Further Reading:

• Book Review: The Righteous Mind
• Dorothy Day
• A Marxist Pope?

"Perspectives for the United States"

It's been a quiet month in Trotsky-land. I've found rather little to write about. Scraping the bottom of the barrel here, not because John Reimann's article is bad, but just that I've covered this territory many times before.

I've borrowed my post's title from Mr. Reimann's piece over at The North Star. The lede paragraph:

The Marxist method is to start by trying to figure out the main processes – the main forces at work – and get some idea of how they will interact and develop. Only then can we figure out our tasks within that general process. Recently a small group of Marxists – the Workers International Network – held a conference in Britain. Here are some thought on the perspectives for the United States that were submitted to that conference:

It's a fine thought, but then why is the following sentence so spectacularly wrong?

On November 9, 2016, the world awoke to Americans having elected the most right wing and racist president since before the US Civil War.

Surely Presidents Reagan and both Bushes were more "right wing" than Trump, at least if judged against standard Republican principles. They all explicitly tried to shrink the size of government (unsuccessfully), and were eager to use US military force abroad (Grenada, Nicaragua, Kuwait, Iraq). Trump, meanwhile, just signed the biggest deficit-spending bill in history, and apart from two pinprick strikes against Syria has barely used American military force at all.

The "racism" charge is also mostly phony. As Scott Alexander puts it, Trump is no more racist than the average 70-year-old white guy. So that's more "racist" than Obama, but it hardly qualifies him as a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Unlike previous Republican candidates, he actively campaigned in Black neighborhoods and sought out their votes. And while unsuccessful at the time, Trump is slowly winning support from Black men (see, e.g., Kanye West).

What is true is that Trump is spectacularly uninterested in racial politics or issues, about which he knows nothing and cares less. That's why he has such a tin ear on things like Charlottesville, where the media were able to take his remarks completely out of context. (See my comments on that episode here.)

Then we're told that Trump is in cahoots with the Russian mafia. Mr. Reimann's source for this is something called oaklandsocialist.com, which refers us to the equally obscure site WhoWhatWhy.org. These tout conspiracy theories--that Trump has surreptitious ties with Russian oligarchs that not Robert Mueller, nor the otherwise bloodthirsty media has been able to reproducibly uncover. This is just BS.

Finally we get to real substance: Mr. Reimann asserts that American imperialism is in decline. He separates this into two parts: domestic and foreign. He asserts that Trump's slogan, Make America Great Again, is in fact a promise to reverse this decline--a promise he won't be able to keep.

Mr. Reimann does have a point. As a fraction of global output US GDP has declined: from 37% in 1967 to 25% today. This happened (in major part) because China (a very big country) rejoined the world economy in 1980 and global GDP has expanded considerably as a result. But it is a big mistake to interpret this as the decline of America (though in Mr. Reimann's defense, Trump makes the same error). The US has hugely benefited from the industrialization of China, as I have documented in detail here (in response to an article by Marxist Lynn Henderson).

It is an undeniable fact that almost all Americans at all income levels are far richer than they were in 1980. Today we have the Internet, cell phones, 500 channels on cheap, 72" televisions, access to streaming movies, real-time video games, much safer, more reliable, and better cars, cheaper food and much cheaper clothing. Etc. I find it completely incredible that my Trotskyist friends can still claim that we're all getting poorer with a straight face. That is manifestly not true!

Yes, some things have gone awry: Mr. Reimann cites lower home ownership rates. Even there he's cherry-picked his data point, for the quality of housing has increased dramatically over that past 40 years. Even renters are substantially better off than they used to be.

Speaking of cherry-picking, Mr. Reimann cites At Our Own Peril, a report published by the US Army War College, as if it represented the last word in Pentagon thinking. Rest assured--it does not. DoD is a huge organization and publishes a zillion reports annually. Some of them are certifiably stupid, like the one that suggested that climate change is the most important defense priority for the United States.

At Our Own Peril is not silly, but to take it as the last word on global politics is silly. Yes, in many ways US influence has declined since 1945, most precipitously since the demise of the Soviet Union. A multipolar world is intrinsically more complex than a bipolar one. And ever cheaper technology makes weapons of mass destruction more easily obtainable, even by non-state actors. So in that sense Mr. Reimann is correct.

But the US spends 37% of all global defense expenditures, roughly triple what China spends. We are by far the most powerful nation on the planet, a fact that is not likely to change any time soon. It's not even close. When President Trump promises "fire & fury," he is very much in a position to deliver just that.

In an all-out war with North Korea, we win. Easily and hands down. But Mr. Reimann distorts that prospect. He writes

There is the matter of North Korea, for example. Right now, the rhetoric as far as crushing that country seems to have receded. But who knows what’s going on beneath the surface? There have been some reports that some generals are implying they would disobey an order to launch a first strike nuclear attack. But relying on the military, which has always had its crazed Dr. Strangelove wing, is a very weak assurance indeed.

Why would the US launch a first strike nuclear attack? We have no need--we can destroy the Nork's nukes with perfectly conventional weapons. Which (I hope) is what we will do if Mr. Kim cannot be persuaded to give them up otherwise.

Mr. Reimann devotes much of his article to the political responses to Mr. Trump. Given his assumption that Trump is some right-wing, Russia-loving, kooky crackpot, no wonder he gets it all wrong. I remind him that Trump won the 2016 election, and he didn't do that by being a bumbling, incompetent, undisciplined idiot. Quite the contrary--the campaign was spectacularly well run. See, for example, here and here (unfortunately I can't now find the best article on this subject).

The truth is Trump is a masterful politician! He has upended politics in precisely the same way Amazon disrupted bookstores, and Uber has trashed taxicabs. The man is not only disciplined--he's a genius! That doesn't mean he's always right on the issues, but he understands the political pulse in America as no other.

Mr. Reimann, writing back in January, claims Trump only had 32% support. Today it's up to about 50%. But none of those numbers matter. Trump may very well be the most unpopular politician in America--except for all the others. I can't think of a single Democrat who has a chance of beating him.

A lot can change between now and 2020. If nothing else, Trump is getting on in years and his health might fail. Still, Trump is far and away the odds on favorite to win reelection in 2020.

Further Reading:

• Summary Statement of US Strategic Goals for the Coming Period
• If Everybody is a Racist, Then Nobody is a Racist
• Book Review: The Accidental Superpower