The Chelsea's Handlers & Temporal Solidarity
This week, two of the three Chelsea’s[1] went after famous Soviet Communist icons. We already knew that Clinton is a class warrior who would compare Lenin to General Robert E Lee. To say she doesn’t believe in the liberation of poor people would be an understatement. But when Manning -- who blew the lid off of US war crimes in Iraq and was tortured for it (another war crime) -- compared the Gestapo to Stalin’s secret police, Marxist-Leninists became disappointed and disillusioned. Some repeated and expanded charges that Manning is a US agent performing psychological warfare. It evoked accusations that moderate Democrats have made for Bernie Sanders as a Russian agent bent on making sure that Donald Trump became president. 

Chelsea, however, calls for the dismantling of the police state and, in fact, the dismantling of the state. She cheers on Antifa and considers herself one. It’s clear she’s not psyop but a Left-Libertarian/Anarchist-Communist. 

For his part, Sanders isn’t an agent provocateur[2] but a Roosevelt-and-Norwegian-social democracy-inspired American liberal.

When the DSA Cop was exposed, many on the left accused the Democratic Socialists of America of being infiltrated by the police or the security state. The fact that Danny Fatonte, Un-Comrade Detective, won’t leave his post on the National Political Committee, however, after obscuring his past union work with the police as organizing “state workers”, together with the caveat he has threatened legal action, reveals not that the DSA is an agent of the CIA, but that it still has a lot of work to do to shed its liberal ties. The anticipation is that it is in the effort of doing so, and this good faith is awarded partially from its vote this month to push toward prison abolition and by the work of half the NPC to remove Fatonte. Apparently, it still needs to work on vetting candidates for the and putting up proper processes to remove them once in office. It does make mobilizing and organizing within the agency more difficult, but not impossible.

What these conspiracy theories do is not necessarily simplify reality, but obfuscate it so that we cannot organize and mobilize effectively. When we idolize the end goals, we can sacrifice the process and end up with no material gains. We need many moving parts to get to our ends, specifically the ends of liberation. We can work together with those whom we disagree with for common purposes or for common objects, depending on how we are aligned and where we are aligned. A negative example of this would be Bill Clinton working together with Newt Gingrich on welfare reform and strengthening mass incarceration, even as they had different visions for what those would look like.

A more positive example of a temporal allyship would be in working to abolish prisons with Chelsea Manning. She and I both seek to end the incarceral state, but what happens after that is pretty much up for grabs; whereas she would seek to abolish the state, I would prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat. I can see her point, being tortured by the state, witnessing the crimes of the state that she did. And I know that we both want more autonomy and liberation for the poor and oppressed, to seek an end to exploitation and capitalism. Where we differ (besides the fact that Chelsea is a bona fide hero and I’m blogging) is that at this point I’m convinced that governing bodies are necessary for this work while she likely believes they will be a hindrance. 

This distinction between our ideologies serves as an identifier to how much and at what points we can work together. That tells me I would be much comradelier towards Bernie Sanders than any of the Clintons. And I probably couldn’t find any common interests with the Trumps, save their love of fast food.

I could definitely work with Sanders to establish universal healthcare and fight against the ravages of unmitigated capitalism. But as Sanders is an imperialist capitalist, there is a finite amount of overlap between our agendas. There will be other areas to struggle against him, such as on immigration and wars. 

In a fight against fascists encroaching upon my community, I’ll stand with Antifa anarchists, Democratic Socialists, pacifist Christians, and even moderates if and when they decide to risk their bodies to protect the community and push the Nazis back. If a Chelsea Clinton wants to help tear down slaver statues, great, let her join. The moment she threatens to call the cops or impugns petty bourgeois morality on those who strike against fascists, she can go back to the goddamned board room and make her inspirational speeches for her billionaire pals, the Trumps. But revolution is about taking the opportunities when they arise and using them for the advantage of the people.

And if we have to work with compromised people to do so, well, we’re all compromised. It’s best to see the cards on the table, though, and know what we’re working with.


[1] Maybe Handler, too, but I wouldn’t know.

[2] Also, not a communist. But then, neither is Russia. Which seems to be really confusing to moderate liberals.