Flickr/Seattle City Council
Show Hide image

How to be left-wing and win in America: a socialist candidate on her election

Seattle’s Kshama Sawant of the Socialist Alternative party tells us how she reached an elected position and plans to combat the US right.

In November 1999, the World Trade Organisation convened in Seattle to discuss a new round of trade negotiations. This wet, windy, seaport city was suddenly under the spotlight. The conference was examining the potential to increase globalisation through new free trade agreements and tariffs between its member nations. But thousands of left-wing protesters had a different idea, resulting in a disastrous event with no new trade pact. Fourteen years later, the city elected its first unapologetic socialist to the council.

Kshama Sawant made headlines with her election victory in 2013. Even in liberal Seattle, where the City Council consists only of Democrats and its mayor is openly gay, it’s a significant sign of social progress for an Indian-born political outsider to gain such prominence.

When I ask her about winning an election after trying and failing the previous year, she responds with the optimism of a political newbie:

“We wouldn’t have won in 2013 unless we had run in 2012. I think it demonstrates the importance of running, fighting grassroots campaigns that energise and mobilise ordinary people. That’s the kind of campaign that you need to run, win or lose.”

It might seem odd to focus on a city-wide official from America’s west coast, but the main crux of Sawant’s campaign was the countrywide-focused “fight for $15”: a mass movement of liberals, workers, environmentalists and union members who are campaigning for a nationwide, federally-mandated increased minimum wage of $15 per hour. (At the time of writing, this would be equivalent to over £12.30 an hour in Britain, nearly double our current minimum wage level.)

It started with David Rolf, the city’s most notable union leader. After the victory of the new multi-step minimum wage increase in Seattle, the fight has spread to other cities, including victories in California and New York.

Sawant, an engineer by trade who went on to study and teach economics, remains the only elected candidate of Socialist Alternative, a sub-group of CWI (Committee for a Workers’ International) which last had its greatest influence in British politics as the Labour Party’s Militant wing.

Yes, Sawant is an unabashed socialist who believes capitalism is utterly broken for all workers, and laments the failures of the left particularly fiercely, concluding: “There has been a historic abdication of duty in the last four to five decades . . . they [the left] have failed to provide an alternative to capitalist-style globalisation and neoliberalism.”

But her pragmatism in dealing with everyday issues currently facing her constituents is how she remains well-tuned to reality. This is clear when I ask about the left’s recent inability to organise as well as other political movements, such as the Tea Party.

“It’s important that ordinary working people are brought out onto the streets, are politicised around concrete issues, because people learn through our experience,” she replies, arguing that rights have always been won through contentious battles, and not handed down freely by political and corporate elites.

This is the key observation Sawant shares during our two lengthy phone calls, as it gives an insight into her party’s political strategy: the need for mass engagement. She continues to state the importance of “reading the consciousness of a mass movement of people”, and working out how far people are willing to go – again mentioning the new minimum wage laws being phased into her city.

You might be forgiven for thinking Seattle is a liberal utopia ready to embrace socialism with both arms.

But here reside the corporate headquarters of Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks, to name a few, and many others thanks to a booming tech scene. It’s already proving that the new $15 wage law is not having any major impact with regards to employment, a common myth conservatives spread when the discussion of tackling low pay arises.

Seattle has many challenges shared by cities around the globe, and Sawant’s current targets are introducing rent controls and municipal broadband.

When asked how the energy and urgency of her message can be effectively utilised in other parts of the world, she stresses the need to engage as many working people as possible, but also having tangible ideas and “concrete examples” of success.

This is valuable advice for all progressives in Britain and elsewhere right now. Labour is currently in a deep malaise. Corbyn’s muddled and anaemic leadership has created an alternate reality for his admirers, while he himself has a barely existent relationship with his deputy. And his principles seem muddled, exemplified most recently by the tangle this week regarding his stance on freedom of movement. This is all taking place against a Conservative PM who causes the value of the pound to drop whenever she speaks, an excuse in its own right to increase our minimum wage levels.

But it looks like progressives in Britain will end up battling for a universal basic income instead of an equally much-needed jump in our low-wage levels. Finland has begun a trial this year and Glasgow councillor Matt Kerr wants to lead a concerted, cross-party effort to realise this payment for all citizens and scrap our complex, multi-tiered welfare system.

Whatever happens, it’s an example that shows tackling inequality is going to be the biggest hurdle in many parts of the world, not just Seattle.

Back in America, Sawant faces the inauguration of Donald Trump and the fact that insurgent politicians of the left have been squeezed out before. San Francisco’s mayoral race of 2003 shows this, where Matt Gonzalez of the Greens very nearly beat the Democratic Party’s Gavin Newsom. Newsom has gone on to serve as lieutenant in Jerry Brown’s governorship of California.

But she remains optimistic and continues to be defiant. She intends to march in Washington DC on 20 January, along with thousands of others, for what could be the biggest demonstration against the inauguration of a new president.

“This is the best shot in a generation to build massive movements and uprisings, we should go for full force,” she says. Her actions have already produced results for her hometown, where her inclusive approach works with her robust tone. It looks like Seattle’s famous overcast might just be clearing up.

Emad Ahmed writes about science and gaming. He tweets @ThisIsEmad.

Getty
Show Hide image

No, Donald Trump isn't starting World War Three in North Korea

The US president is living up to his promise to be "unpredictable". But is he using war as a sales pitch? 

“I plan on not dying,” Ian McCulloch of Echo and the Bunnymen told Spin magazine in 2008. “But if I have to, I want to die in Liverpool.” And so it was that nine years later, when war in the Asia-Pacific region suddenly seemed plausible, perhaps even likely, the musician pulled out of a solo show in Tokyo that was scheduled for 14 April and, according to Japan Today, left the country without even informing the event’s organisers. “We apologise for this significant inconvenience,” they later tweeted to ticketholders, blaming “news of an armed conflict between the US and North Korea” for the abrupt cancellation.

McCulloch isn’t the only one spooked by the heightened tensions between the two countries. Japan, America’s most strategically valuable ally in east Asia, lies within striking distance of Pyongyang’s weapons – military hardware that North Korea’s deputy foreign minister, Han Song-Ryol, recently insisted would continue to be tested “on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis”. On 8 April, three days before the North’s Supreme People’s Assembly was scheduled to convene, the 333-metre-long US aircraft carrier Carl Vinson left its home port of San Diego, accompanied by missile destroyers and a cruiser. The American president declared that he was sending an “armada” to the troublesome peninsula. If this was intended as a deterrence, however, North Korea was not deterred, and it fired a test missile from an eastern port on 16 April. The experiment ended in failure: the weapon exploded almost immediately after launch. Yet the message was clear. Don’t mess.

So the Korean War, which began in June 1950 but was never formally concluded with a peace treaty, has seemingly reached a crisis of a magnitude not felt since the armistice of 1953. Kim In-ryong, North Korea’s deputy UN ambassador, has accused the US of creating “a dangerous situation in which a thermonuclear war may break out at any moment”. If that’s true, McCulloch did well to take the first plane out of the area.

Such an apocalyptic scenario, however, remains unlikely to play out. It would serve no one’s interests, least of all North Korea’s, since the country could be wiped out almost immediately. Donald Trump demonstrated as much when he deployed the “mother of all bombs” – the Moab, the largest conventional explosive that the US has ever used in combat – on Isis bunkers in Afghanistan on 13 April. Perhaps more concerning to other heads of state than the damage done by the weapon was the apparent irrationality of the strike: Isis’s presence in the country is limited in comparison to that of the Taliban, and such an attack was unlikely to lead to any long-term resolution of the various crises there.

The US president, in effect, was signalling that he could match foes such as Kim Jong-un in terms of unpredictability – something that he had already underscored on 6 April with his surprise strike on a Syrian government airbase. It was a showbiz gesture.

On the campaign trail in January last year, Trump was asked whether he would consider bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I’m gonna do what’s right,” he said. “I want to be unpredictable.” Since his inauguration, he has stuck to the latter part of that plan, from his on-again-off-again flirtation with Putin to his recent reversal on Chinese currency manipulation. Trump, it seems, is a president who wants to keep both enemies and allies on their toes. It’s a deal-making mentality – the sensibility of a salesman, not of a statesman. And it’s a dangerous one when applied to the global stage, where trust between nations is essential for any meaningful diplomacy.

If Trump is applying his “art of the deal” to America’s recent international ventures, it’s worth asking what the deal – or deals – in question might be. North Korea has long been a proxy for other problems in east Asia. The winding down of its nuclear weapons programme for its own sake looks, to me, unlikely to be the president’s principal objective (the US had a chance to pursue this in 1994 when it signed the Agreed Framework with North Korea, but political enthusiasm for it cooled almost before the ink had dried). But for a Third World War, even a thermonuclear one, to be put on the table as a potential reality, surely the stakes must be high?

I have my doubts. Trump’s foreign policy seems nowhere near as coherent or developed as, say, that of Barack Obama (imperfect though his doctrine of “patience” turned out to be). America’s recent actions have seemed opportunistic, rather than strategic. Brinkmanship from either side won't achieve anything, as both are reluctant to make concessions. So what could the US be up to?

Maybe the supposedly impending nuclear apocalypse is, at least in part, a ruse to sell stuff. Among the policy areas closest to Trump’s heart during his presidential campaign was trade. Last month, Peter Navarro, the director of the White House’s national trade council, told the Wall Street Journal: “Any country we have a significant trade deficit with needs to work with us on a product-by-product and sector-by-sector level to reduce that deficit over a specified period of time… That can be achieved, if they buy more of our products than they now are buying from the rest of the world, whether it’s chemicals or corn or whether, from a national security perspective, it’s submarines or aircraft.”

The countries with the largest trade imbalances with the US are China, Japan and Germany. China denies that it is deliberately pursuing a surplus in its dealings with US (and, frankly, what could America do about it anyway?), while Germany’s trade relations are handled by the European Union and so are difficult for the US to reset on a nation-to-nation basis. But Japan – which the US vice-president, Mike Pence, visited on a trade tour this week – has a pliable leader in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Abe, a nationalist by instinct who has long struggled to remilitarise Japan and has incrementally reinterpreted his country’s pacifist constitution to permit increased military engagement, signed a significant arms trade pact with the US last year. Resistance to his agenda has been vocal in Japan at every step. However, fears of a rising threat from North Korea would give him more wriggle room. A Japanese commission is considering the potential benefits of deploying the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on its territory. This system will soon be in use in South Korea – much to the annoyance of China, which suspects that it would be capable of tracking and countering its nuclear programme.

Trump’s insistence that trade imbalances be remedied is unrealistic in many sectors, not least in the auto sector, since Japan already allows US cars into its market tariff-free and they still don’t sell. Upping trade and collaboration in arms, however, would help Abe appease Trump while getting closer to fulfilling his own goal of a militarily robust Japan. The threat of war could also allow him to establish a more active role for the nation’s “self-defence forces”. The US president, meanwhile, would have succeeded in getting one of America’s supposed “free-rider” allies to contribute something closer to what he deems its fair share, while strengthening his hand against the real adversary: Beijing.

While US arms dealers are doubtless readying their wares for sale, war with North Korea will probably be averted by pressure from China, without whose oil, airports, trade and access to financial markets the rogue nation could not function. (Some 80 per cent of North Korean exports and imports are with China.) From this perspective, the recent tensions between the US and North Korea represent an admittedly melodramatic episode of the US “pivot” to the east, more than the beginning of the end of the world.

It’s an unstable stability, but stable enough to allow for shallow political game-playing – and I suspect Trump is gaming it (as the revelation that the Carl Vinson flotilla was 3,500 miles away from North Korea and heading the wrong way at the time of Trump’s “armada” threat suggests). So McCulloch needn’t have denied Japanese fans a rendition of “Killing Moon”. The bombs aren’t likely to fall yet.

Yo Zushi is a contributing writer for the New Statesman. His latest album, It Never Entered My Mind, is out now on Eidola Records and is on Spotify here.

0800 7318496