From xxxxxx <[email protected]>
Subject Socialist Strategy and the Biden Debate
Date July 7, 2020 12:00 AM
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
[Should anti-capitalists urge a vote for Joe Biden to defeat
Donald Trump in November 2020 or not? ] [[link removed]]

SOCIALIST STRATEGY AND THE BIDEN DEBATE  
[[link removed]]

 

Max Elbaum
July 6, 2020
Organizing Upgrade
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ Should anti-capitalists urge a vote for Joe Biden to defeat Donald
Trump in November 2020 or not? _

,

 

The COVID-19 pandemic and the uprising to defend Black lives have cast
a spotlight on a level of deep-rooted inequality, ruling class
degeneration, and public-health-be-damned behavior that makes the U.S.
unique even among capitalist countries. My next column will examine
the sources of these pathologies in a nation founded on racial slavery
and genocide that has now entered the stage of its imperial decline.

But first I want to join a debate that was riveting parts of the left
before COVID-19 hit and George Floyd was murdered. Partly because
important lessons from the early forms it took are in danger of being
lost; and partly because the discussion is still raging, and the
stakes are high:

Should anti-capitalists urge a vote for Joe Biden to defeat Donald
Trump in November 2020 or not?

CENTRAL POLARIZATON SHAPING THE MOMENT

Engaging this question head-on can do more than clarify the next five
months’ action priorities, important as those are. It can illuminate
issues of political strategy that go deeper than the tired “same
debate every four years” ritual. And focusing on strategic questions
is the best antidote to the tendencies toward call-out personal
attacks, sectarian point-scoring, and general hectoring that sap
morale and alienate potential allies.

Cutting to the strategic heart of the Biden debate means looking at
these questions:

What does living in the era of neoliberal capitalism tell us – and
not tell us – about the alignment of social forces in the U.S today?
What is the central polarization – the main axis of struggle –
around which the biggest current battles revolve?

How does white supremacy interweave with capitalist exploitation to
shape that polarization?

What is the relationship of battles for democratic rights to the fight
for working class power?

How does a left that is just beginning to climb out of the margins go
from weak to strong, especially given the unique U.S. winner-take-all,
two-party system?

In addressing these questions, this longer-than-usual column will
present arguments for the following proposition:

The central polarization in the country today is between a Trumpist
bloc driving toward  authoritarian rule vs. a majority opposition
that, for all the vacillations and differences within it, is defending
the democratic space that movements for justice, peace and radical
change require to advance. Race and racism lie at the heart of this
polarization.

This has been the case ever since Trump was elected. But the
administration’s response to the pandemic and the uprising has made
it even clearer. The 2020 election will determine which force will
hold governing power: a reactionary bloc anchored in white supremacy
or an administration that can be influenced by a progressive current
powered by the fight for racial justice.

A crucial way to maximize chances of the latter prevailing, as well as
to build the strength and influence of the left itself, is for us to
become an independent yet resolute force engaging this electoral
battle. Our goal should be turning out the largest possible working
class and people of color vote for Biden with the message that
removing white nationalism from political power is an indispensable
step in the long- term battle for transformative change.

DIFFERENCES OBSCURED DURING BERNIE’S CAMPAIGN

Differences over the strategic questions posed above are longstanding
on the left. But they exploded with tremendous intensity immediately
after Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign.

This was mainly because key strategic differences were obscured and
largely unacknowledged while Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie
Sanders’ presidential campaigns were in full swing.

Bernie’s was the larger and more sustained effort. Most Bernie
supporters backed his candidacy because they were enthusiastic about
the programs he advocated and his “not me, us” approach.

But for socialists who backed Bernie, there was an additional factor.
Bernie’s effort was seen as providing a vehicle for building a
durable working-class movement against capitalism. What was not faced
squarely was that on the level of socialist strategy, Bernie was
sending two different – in fact, contradictory – signals.

One suggested his was a campaign against the billionaire class as a
whole, and that the establishments of both parties were equally
beholden to the 1%. While Bernie contended for the Democratic Party
nomination, he was an “independent” and self-identified democratic
socialist, so this could be interpreted as a strictly tactical and
temporary choice. This signal implied that the main axis of U.S.
struggle was workers vs. capital, and it led some to view Bernie’s
campaign constituted a direct steppingstone to building a
non-Democratic Party force that would unify workers and wage class
struggle against the entire neoliberal ruling class.

But a different signal was sent by Bernie consistently calling Trump
“the most dangerous President in modern American history” and
stating from day one that he would support whomever won
[[link removed]]
the Democratic nomination. Bernie and Bernie-connected groups like Our
Revolution worked to build their independent clout, but also fought to
maximize progressive strength within the structures of the Democratic
Party. This approach signaled that the campaign regarded the main
polarization in the country as the ultra-reactionary bloc behind Trump
vs. a broad front in defense of democratic rights, within which the
Bernie movement would set a working-class pole. The 2020 Democratic
Party was the electoral vehicle for that anti-Trumpist front, and
Bernie would maintain a unity-and-struggle relationship with all other
political trends within it.

When Bernie’s campaign was growing, socialists largely ignored this
important difference. Occasional conflicts did take place, for example
the debate over how to relate to those radicals who believed Elizabeth
Warren was more attuned to issues of racial and gender justice than
Bernie, and/or that she had the best chance of uniting the anti-Trump
front under a progressive banner. Bernie-backing socialists whose
priority was defeating Trumpism advocated close cooperation with
Warren supporters. But the other wing of socialist Bernie proponents
were critical if not outright hostile
[[link removed]].
This produced a sharp debate
[[link removed]]
that receded only because Warren’s campaign stalled and Bernie’s
surged in February.

POST-BERNIE EXPLOSION

Then, right on the heels of Bernie’s Nevada-fueled surge, the South
Carolina, Super Tuesday, and Michigan primary results knocked him out
of the running. A few weeks later Bernie suspended his campaign,
endorsed Biden
[[link removed]],
and announced he and the former Vice-President would set up a number
of task forces to institutionalize a working relationship that would
extend through the general election campaign into a Biden
administration.

These steps – and then the task forces coming into being
[[link removed]]
– were unmistakable signs that Bernie’s strategy was to fight for
the influence of working-class-oriented programs within a cross-class
anti-Trump front.

With the end of Bernie’s campaign and no more ambiguity about his
stance, the suppressed strategic differences on the left rocketed to
the fore.

While facing many challenges, radical supporters of Sanders, Warren or
neither whose strategy was to fight for left influence within an
anti-Trump front had a clear path forward. Engage urgent COVID-19
battles and start gearing up for the general. Craft the specifics of
an anti-Trump message. Scale up infrastructure so that further efforts
build independent organizational clout rather than getting subsumed in
the official Biden campaign. Support progressive and socialist
down-ballot candidates. Plunge into the host of grassroots labor,
tenant, criminal justice, immigrant rights and voting rights battles
that are key to expanding progressive influence inside and outside the
Democratic Party. And after the uprising focused on anti-Black racism
took off, go all-in behind it and the pivotal role  being played by
the Movement for Black Lives [[link removed]].

THE ‘NEVER BIDEN’ CAMP

For those who favor the Bernie movement transitioning into a purely
working-class force fighting equally against both the GOP and
Democratic Party establishments, the transition post-Bernie is
tougher.

The course with the most logical and political consistency is to take
immediate steps toward creation of a third party. But Bernie, most of
the apparatus of his campaign, the Squad, and most Warren supporters
– not to mention almost the entire labor movement and big majorities
in communities of color – are signaling they will back Biden. It is
hardly appealing to shift almost overnight from a surging movement of
millions to a project weaker by several orders of magnitude.

Nevertheless, for most who believe that the central axis of struggle
must remain worker-vs. capitalist and the left’s main task is to
always promote a break with Democratic and Republican establishments,
backing Biden, even with0ut a formal endorsement, is a bridge too far.
So the dominant voices in this camp are left with a mainly _what not
to do _approach to the 2020 presidential contest: socialist
organizations should not get behind Biden or call for collective
action to defeat Trump. Instead they recommend supporting socialist
candidates in down ballot races and working in non-electoral struggles
that build workers’ power.

This “Never Biden” position (in the form of ‘Bernie or Bust’)
was adopted by DSA at its 2019 Convention. As a result, the largest
organization on the socialist left is without a positive national
strategy for engaging in the 2020 contest. Rather than taking a course
parallel to Bernie’s, as a national organization DSA has positioned
itself on the margins of the central political fight of the year.

Given the big tent character of DSA and the wide range of views within
it, what specific chapters and individual members will do varies
widely. Those of us outside DSA need to respect the organization’s
choice and recognize that most of what its members will do over the
next five months will contribute positively to social change. But it
is simply stating a fact that no revolutionary organization has ever
grown into a powerful, much less dominant, force in any country
without implementing a strategy that engages the main battle in
nationwide politics, whether that fight is primarily electoral, mainly
armed conflict, or anything in between.

WORKERS VS. NEO-LIBERAL CAPITALISTS  

These differences within U.S. radicalism do not stem from any
difference in the depth of anyone’s commitment to social
transformation. Rather they reflect opposing assessments of what
constitutes the central axis of political polarization in the U.S,
today and therefore the most appropriate socialist strategy.

There is consensus on the left that we are currently living under
capitalism in its neoliberal form. For the “Never Biden” tendency,
that translates into seeing the workers vs. neoliberal capitalist
conflict as the central axis around which socialists need to draw not
just ideological but immediate electoral and non-electoral action
lines. Any view other than this is seen as diluting socialist
principle.

For decades, most who held this view argued that it mandated staying
100% out of the Democratic Party. In the wake of the 2016 Sanders
campaign, and especially in 2019-2020, a large cohort abandoned this
position
[[link removed]]
(to cries of betrayal by their former co-thinkers
[[link removed]]}.
Those who shifted decided that because of the constraints of the
two-party system, it was acceptable to contend for a place on the
Democratic ballot line, but only if insurgent candidates ran as
socialists. Backing non-socialists in primaries or general elections,
or engagement in any structure affiliated with the Democratic Party,
was still forbidden.

There is a logic to this view. And it has particular appeal to people
radicalized since the 2008 financial crisis. That event and the
resulting economic downturn turned a large proportion of educated
youth into a debt-ridden, downwardly mobile cohort.

WHITE SUPREMACY AT THE PIVOT

Appealing as it is, however, this perspective mis-assesses the lineup
of forces in the country’s current polarization.

The left might wish for (and work toward making) the central dividing
line in U.S. politics between a multi-racial, intergenerational and
all-round inclusive working class vs. an alignment of big capital,
chunks of the middle class and a small layer of ideologically
corrupted or outright bought workers. But that is not the reality
today and it very rarely has been in the past.

Today’s which-side-are-you-on dividing line is between a racist
authoritarian bloc led by Donald Trump vs. a larger but much more
heterogeneous array of forces that, from different angles, regard
Trumpism as a dire threat to their rights and interests.

Both the Trump and anti-Trump camps are multi-class alliances. Both
contain advocates of neoliberal economics. The conflict between them
is nonetheless quite sharp. The dividing line is the system of white
supremacy. This racist material relation is not an “add-on” that
piles oppression on top of exploitation for certain groups of workers.
Rather, it is integral to and interwoven with relations of
exploitation in ways that have decisively shaped political conflict in
the U.S. since its origins in 1619.

Trumpism rose to power in the wake of a 50-year backlash against the
gains made by 1960s movements, the overthrow of legal Jim Crow and
passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act most of all. Nixon’s
“Southern Strategy” and then Reagan’s dog-whistle racism laid
the groundwork for the openly racist “birther” campaign that
transformed Trump from a reality-TV host into a formidable
presidential candidate. Since 2016 Trump has gained complete control
of the Republican Party. Former top GOP strategist Avik Roy put it
concisely: the GOP is a party whose center of gravity is white
nationalism
[[link removed]].
Anti-feminism and homophobia are incorporated into this toxic brew,
and all who are not on board have been purged or cowed into
acquiescence.

In a mirror image of the way the Black-led Civil Rights struggle
expanded democratic rights and yielded economic gains for all workers
and oppressed constituencies, racism lay at the cutting edge of the
neoliberal era’s assault on the working class as a whole. It lies at
Trumpism’s core, and has driven us to this moment when racial
polarization, urban-rural polarization, partisan political and even
basic information-source divisions now thoroughly overlap.

The differential impact of COVID-19 across the color line and the
uprising to defend Black lives have both intensified this central
polarization and underscored the way racism stands at its pivot. The
country is now more sharply polarized than it has been since the Civil
War.

This is the reason why Trumpism, which attacks the living standards
and political strength of the U.S. working class, has been able to
glue large numbers of white workers to its key social base in the
capitalist class and middle strata. It is why the vast majority of
people of color and other democratic minded people of all classes are
arrayed against Trump. All workers have suffered intensified hardships
since the 2008 financial crisis, but there is a deep racial chasm in
the working class’ political response.

DRIVE TOWARD AUTHORITARIAN RULE

Going hand-in-hand with the Trumpism’s deployment of “strategic
racism
[[link removed]]”
is its drive toward authoritarian rule.

While Trump’s unhinged egomania contributes to this malady,
authoritarianism’s main driver is the corporate core of Trumpism –
the fossil fuel industry, military industrial complex, and a cohort of
right-wing billionaires. These heavyweights calculate that they need
to dispense with the previous norms of U.S. democracy to advance their
agenda.

Their calculation is based mainly on two things:

The first is demographic change: the steadily rising proportion of
people of color in the U.S. means expansion of the population that is
most resistant to their increase-poverty-and-inequality program.

The second is the stagnation of the neoliberal model, which since 2008
has lost its capacity to even minimally share the fruits of economic
growth and requires ever-harsher austerity for workers and the middle
classes to keep going at all.

Faced with a rising proportion of people of color, a downwardly mobile
young generation that is turning left, and increasing resistance to
climate change denialism, top GOP leaders including Trump himself are
on record stating they want to prevent a one person, one vote society.

The results include intensifying voter suppression, stacking the
federal judiciary, purging all but Trump loyalists from all
decision-making positions in the federal bureaucracy, and cultivating
ties with openly fascist militias.

In response to COVID-19, heightened attacks on science and basic facts
have been added to Trumpism’s racist (“China virus”) playbook.
In response to the massive protests that followed the murder of George
Floyd, Trumpists call for “dominating the battlespace” and the
President tweets that Black Lives Matter is a “symbol of hate
[[link removed]]”
and  threatens mass murder (“when the looting starts, the shooting
starts
[[link removed]]“).

These steps have gone past the rules-of-the-game that had been
accepted by Republicans and Democrats since McCarthyism ended. Even
the mild concessions to communities of color that the Democratic
Party-wing of capital was willing to make are seen as a prelude “to
pull down our whole culture:
[[link removed]]
the American founding, western civilization and everything that sprang
from it.” In the last few weeks Trump has gone all-in to
defend-the-heritage-of-the-Confederacy mode, bringing to mind W.E.B.
Du Bois’ observations
[[link removed]]
about the parallels between the “white supremacism” of Jim Crow
America and fascism.

INTRA-RULING CLASS CONFLICT

Trump’s escalations have produced a leap in intensity of
intra-ruling class conflict. Previous “norms” served the U.S.
ruling class well, especially facilitating their capacity to project
“soft power” globally. No surprise that many in the elite see
dispensing with them as a huge mistake. Similarly, important wings of
capital think climate change and COVID-19 are real, science is
important, and conspiracy theories are destabilizing and dangerous.

Plus being the target of “lock ’em up’ threats while Trump takes
personal control of the Justice Department raises the stakes.

So, for a mix of reasons that include personal survival and partisan
advantage as well as a certain conception of their class interest, a
wing of the ruling class is opposed to Trump assuming “total
authority.” They call for a return to a “reality based” politics
where facts and science matter, and press for an end to gerrymandering
[[link removed]] and for voting rights protection.

These are not “bourgeois” issues irrelevant to socialists.
Preservation and expansion of democratic space is crucial if the
working class and all those damaged by capitalism are to have the most
favorable conditions to organize for power.

This crucial point is obscured, and the danger of Trumpism is badly
under-estimated, by a framework that minimizes the differences between
the Trump and corporate Democrat camps because both can be said to
espouse versions of neoliberalism.

PULLED INTO THE VORTEX

The intensity of the Trump/GOP vs. anti-Trump polarization pulls
everything into its vortex. Issues from climate change to public
health, where opinion once was spread across party lines, have become
thoroughly partisan. Even amid a pandemic that thrusts the need for
science-based government action center-stage, the GOP base is sticking
with an administration that is spreading conspiracy theories, doubling
down on privatization, repealing environmental regulations, and giving
employers immunity to jeopardize the health of their employees,

Democratic opinion has shifted in the other direction. Polling shows a
markedly leftward shift among Democratic voters on issues related to
anti-Blackness
[[link removed]]
and immigration, especially since the Black Lives Matter uprising.
Support for Medicare for All and a Green New Deal has skyrocketed.

Even on issues where resistance to change is strongest, a shift is
underway. On foreign policy (long the holy of holies for bipartisan
cooperation) there is now a body of stalwart antiwar congresspeople
with stable popular support. On perhaps the toughest issue of all –
the Party’s lockstep support for Israel – there is progress, with
Israel’s apologists expressing horror that the issue is “becoming
politicized” as backing for Palestinian rights
[[link removed]]
grows steadily in the Democratic base.

Responses to the pandemic have likewise bent to the gravitational
force of the Trump-anti-Trump dynamic. Stances toward “reopening”;
toward who is responsible for the staggering health and economic toll;
toward mask-wearing or even whether the pandemic is a serious problem
at all, fall along partisan lines.

The immense force of the country’s central polarization also
explains why

Biden beat Bernie and Warren so decisively in the primaries. The left
was outgunned in this fight. We did not yet have the base or
infrastructure to prevail. But it was the “electability” factor
that accounts for the scale of Biden’s win. Many on the left
regarded “electability” as a red herring deployed by the corporate
media to block the left. The anti-left “commentariat” did play it
up, but it resonated deeply with many voters, including in
constituencies that would benefit far more from Bernie’s program
than Biden’s.

Why? Because these voters saw the central task in 2020 as getting
Trump out of power. They wanted to see the broadest possible front
arrayed against him in November. We may not agree that Biden, rather
than Bernie or Warren, is the best candidate around which to build
such a front. But voters’ who saw Biden as most likely to succeed
cannot simply be dismissed by a left that aims for majority support.

IMPLICATIONS FOR LEFT STRATEGY

Grasping the centrality of the Trump anti-Trump polarization, and the
fact that white supremacy is at its pivot, is the key to accurately
assessing the moment and the left’s key tasks:

* We are in a “democratic moment” that can open the door to
deep-going change. In immediate practical terms, the issue facing the
U.S. in this election and all the battles swirling around it is how
much democratic space we will have in 2021 and after. Preserving
maximum democratic space is important in itself. In addition, the
pandemic and uprising have all but closed off the possibility of
returning to the “old normal” and there is a new level of mass
support for far-reaching change which includes a surge of support for
socialism. This combination has already forced Biden to shift his
mantra
[[link removed]]
from “return to normalcy” to promising “sweeping economic
change” and means there is a huge opportunity
[[link removed]]
for social movements to take advantage of wider democratic space to
press for structural change and win important victories.

* Throwing ourselves into the anti-Trump coalition is the best route
for both ousting Trump _and_ building the strength of progressive
movements and the socialist left. This course propels us to broad
interaction with working class and people of color constituencies,
enabling us to learn more about their thinking and to expand our
ranks. It is a path to building closer alliances with the range of
labor, racial justice, climate justice, gender justice, immigrant
rights, LGBTQ, tenant rights, public health and other organizations
that will be going all out to beat Trump in November. And it gives us
a chance to significantly reduce the number of Bernie supporters who
do not vote for Biden (an alarming 25% in 2016).

(There are leftists who acknowledge that the central axis of battle in
the country is Trump-anti-Trump, or at least that everyone would be
far better
[[link removed]]
off if Trump is defeated,  but argue that socialists should still
abstain from the electoral battle against Trump. Rather, we should
focus on other battles to build up left power. That kind of
orientation might be practical in the short term for a small
organization. But on the level of strategy it substitutes the
voluntarist notion that the left can set the agenda and timetable for
mass struggle for a materialist perspective that recognizes that
underlying trends and political forces far more powerful than
ourselves set the conditions that we must deal with. In doing so it
fosters a stronghold, “if you build it, they will come” approach
to politics that would consign the left to the margins as the
struggles of millions pass us by.)

* Build the independent strength of left and socialist organizations
in the course of the election campaign – Our Revolution, Working
Families Party, state-based power-building organizations,
organizations in the Left Inside-Outside project, sections of DSA that
participate in the anti-Trump front. This task means more than
persuading and turning out voters. It means being part of campaigns
against voter suppression between now and the election, taking part in
voter protection efforts on election day, and making specific
preparations for mass action to defend the election results in case
Trump loses but refuses to accept the result. It also means
participating in a mix of down-ballot races and non-electoral actions
essential to defending the health, rights and economic interests of
workers and all who are vulnerable – an especially urgent task right
now with infections soaring and the benefits that have been keeping
millions afloat about to run out.

Each specific organization has limited resources and is positioned in
different locations and sectors. Choices must be made about specific
action priorities. Within a common strategy there will be different
tactical approaches.

“BEAT TRUMP” OR “NEVER BIDEN”

I will close with a contrast between the messages the “Beat Trump”
and “Never Biden” strategies each send to one of the
constituencies most important for the left to be rooted in if we are
to become a powerful driver of transformative change.

The majority of African Americans in the U.S. live in the South (the
11 states of the former Confederacy plus Oklahoma, Kentucky, Maryland,
West Virginia, and Delaware.) This is the sector of the U.S.
population that has the strongest collective memory of both Jim Crow
and the bitter and bloody struggle of the Civil Rights Movement to
overthrow it. The shadow of that history, of lynching and racist
violence by state authorities and non-state actors, hangs heavy over
the region as a seemingly constant stream of murders from Trayvon
Martin to Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor keeps reminding us. State
governments in the South are among the most pro-military, anti-union,
and anti-reproductive rights in the country.

There are notable differences in political outlook along generational
and other lines in this sector: like other communities African
Americans in the South are far from monolithic. But unity in defense
of the gains made in the 1960s remains a powerful factor. Further,
state-level campaigns like Stacy Abrams in Georgia and Andrew Gillum
in Florida in 2018, Charles Booker in Kentucky in 2020, as well as
numerous local contests, have not only energized almost all sectors of
the community, but positioned it as the anchor of a growing
multi-racial alignment.

In the wake of Trump’s criminal and racist response to both the
pandemic and uprising, it is possible that Georgia and Texas may
become battleground states; prospects to beat Trump in Virginia, North
Carolina and Florida have improved; and new possibilities for gains in
down-ballot races have opened up in in every southern state. Southern
activists, especially southern Black activists, have increased the
volume on the longstanding call for both the Democratic Party and the
progressive eco-system to wake up to the importance of the South and
devote real resources to bolstering organizations rooted there. There
is every indication that African Americans in the South will be in the
forefront of the efforts to build a multi-racial electoral coalition
to beat Trump in November and make sure that every vote is protected
and counted.

Leaving aside for a moment how it will affect vote tallies on November
3, which of the following messages is likely to build the strength of
the socialist movement in this crucial constituency?

*”We will throw our organization strength into the electoral battle
to defeat Trump and prevent a return to Jim Crow, and push from there
for this country to become a genuine multi-racial democracy under the
leadership of the working class.”

or

*There is not enough difference between the contenders for the
presidency to make it worth our while to take part in electoral fight
to beat Trump. Instead, we will focus on building our own strength on
our own timetable and engage in presidential politics when we decide
there is a socialist candidate more deserving of our time and
energy.”

Those who send the second message may build a force which defends
radical ideas and contributes to important fights.

But the left forces whose strategy translates into sending the first
message have much better prospects to grow their ranks and expand
their influence, power and coalition relationships.

Beyond that, they will be dealing a blow to the ‘permanent
opposition’ mentality that has so often stunted the vision of U.S.
radicals – embracing instead the revolutionary idea that our goal is
to be part of, and then ultimately lead, a coalition that governs and
transforms the whole country.

_Max Elbaum has been active in peace, anti-racist and radical
movements since the 1960s. He is an editor of Organizing Upgrade and
the author of Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin,
Mao and Che (Verso Books, Third Edition, 2018)._

Support Organizing Upgrade
[[link removed]]

Since relaunching in 2017, Organizing Upgrade has served as a key
forum for left organizers to engage in strategic dialogue. We bring
organizers together across our movements to analyze the landscape and
identify key points of alignment, debate, and intervention. Our
editorial collective is an all-volunteer team.

This summer, we are launching a fundraising campaign with the goal of
raising at least $20,000 to improve our website for readers, purchase
technology to expand our audio-visual offerings (including a new
podcast series coming soon!), and to expand our reach to bring new
organizers into our community. As we face a series of profound and
on-going crises, we believe that now more than ever, our mission of
creating space for strategic dialogue is essential.

Make a donation today to help us continue with the vital work needed
to build the left and defeat the right.
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]
Screenshot of the email generated on import

Message Analysis

  • Sender: Portside
  • Political Party: n/a
  • Country: United States
  • State/Locality: n/a
  • Office: n/a
  • Email Providers:
    • L-Soft LISTSERV