Rehabilitating the Left

FIRST there was the Socialist Party, then the Communists, and finally the so-called "new left." Three times in this century the American left has tried and failed. But now there are those who say the conditions are finally right for acheiving the traditional goal of the left: a radically new society, based on the rationality of social need instead of profit.

Among the people saying these things is James Weinstein, wealthy author and publisher, who two weeks ago began a new socialist newspaper called In These Times. Over the years Weinstein has invested his editorial talents and considerable capital in various anti-capitalist publications, including Studies on the Left and the intellectual monthly Socialist Revolution.

In These Times, a weekly paper, is his most ambitious undertaking. In his recent book, Ambiguous Legacy, Weinstein speaks of the need for a new socialist party. And it is clear from its first editorial that In These Times sees itself as the catalyst to a new leftist movement and ultimately to a new socialist party.

The editorial speaks of filling the gap between "the sectarian legacy of the socialist left, and the timidity and incapacity of the social reform tradition." Weinstein seems to think the issue of corporate capitalism, ignored by the Democrats and Republicans, can give rise to a new party, just as the issue of slavery, ignored by the pre-Civil War Whigs and Democrats, gave birth to the Republican Party.

The lead editorial in the second issue argues that the voter turnout of only 53 per cent in the last election reveals a vacuum in the electoral arena waiting to be filled by the socialists.

In a telephone interview last week Weinstein spoke of making capitalism versus socialism the main issue for the hundreds of thousands of people he believes are "implicitly socialist." These include feminists, conservationists, labor activists, civil rights workers, consumer rights advocates, and the left-liberal members of the Democratic party.

The movement Weinstein envisions seems similar to the social democratic philosophies of Western Europe. The introductory editorial sees socialism as the means of achieving the primary goal of complete democracy. It argues for a diversity of socialist movements. And it affirms the electoral process.

A feature article in the first issue, about Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Calif.) and the left revival in the Oakland area, underscores the paper's interest in bringing socialism back into the electoral arena. (Dellums is a democratic socialist.)

BESIDES APPEALING to a new popular constituency, the paper hopes to embrace the already existing socialist tradition in this country. In These Times lists 39 sponsors representing a wide range of views. They include Julian Bond, Noam Chomsky, Barry Commoner, Daniel Ellsberg, Salvador Luria, Herbert Marcuse, and Paul Sweezy '31. Many of the sponsors will also write for the paper.

Its explicit socialism distinguishes In These Times from the politics of numerous hip-capitalist papers like the Village Voice, or the Real Paper. And its low-key style makes its stated concern with democracy more credible than leftist papers whose strident rhetoric gives anti-capitalism an authoritarian tenor.

The handful of leftist newspapers already in existence are usually narrowly sectarian and interested mainly in pushing their own arcane dogma as the one and only Truth. But as Weinstein puts it, In These Times is a "political publication, not a religious one." (Curiously enough, the paper was originally called "These Times" until a copyright search turned up a Seventh Day Adventist publication by that name.)

The 24-page paper features sections on national politics, world events, art and entertainment, and opinion. Women's issues, labor, ecology, and minorities are all represented.

But although the subject matter is well chosen, analysis of events sometimes falls short. The purpose of an explicitly socialist newspaper ought to be to provide a perspective that is otherwise lacking in the media.

The quality of journalism is generally good, but not always consistent. For example, the lead story in the second issue, about a poisonous chemical that was mistakenly mixed into animal feed in Michigan, was rather loosely written and didn't mention until the fifth paragraph the most important fact: that the chemical was making people sick.

The first few issues of any publication are likely to be a bit awkward. Headlines in the pilot issue of In These Times were often misleading, and one bore no relation whatsoever to the content of an entire page.

Picture captions were uniformly unimaginative--sometimes even juvenile. A caption to a picture of Mao and his wife Chiang Ching says, "She was the most hated and he was the most revered person in China." Fortunately, the article which it accompanied, written by David and Nancy Milton, who recently co-authored an important book on the Chinese cultural revolution, maintained a somewhat more sophisticated level of analysis.

It would be convenient if In These Times had a table of contents--only 4 or 5 major stories are listed on the front page. And the movie reviews could be more discriminating; reviewers lavish uncritical praise on both "The Front" and "The Seven-Per-Cent Solution."

Yet in spite of the minor drawbacks, In These Times clearly has the potential to become a reputable leftist weekly. Some of its reporters and columnists are tops, and its list of sponsors is potentially a gold mine, if they actually come through with copy.

WHETHER In These Times can succeed as the political voice of a new movement is impossible to predict. The sheer magnitude of the undertaking provokes a fair amount of skepticism. Eugene McCarthy, while not a socialist, made an appeal to the same theoretical constituency as In These Times, and he failed.

But that doesn't necessarily mean a constituency for a popular leftist movement does not exist. Maybe all it needs to make its presence felt is a coherent program and leaders with a rational, practical vision.