Many of the 50th anniversary retrospectives on the Popular Unity government in Chile (1970 – September 11, 1973) in recent weeks argue that if President Allende and his supporters had only done this or that the coup would have been averted and a rapid advance to socialism would have been possible. The problem with this sort of analysis is that it lacks any sense of the real constraints on and resistance to the Allende government as well as the real difficulties of any revolutionary process.

To assume, as many do, that Allende and Popular Unity were captives of illusions about the nature of the state, the neutrality of the military, the non intervention intentions of neighboring countries and the US government, the imperative of sustained mobilization of popular forces, the necessity of broader, cross class alliances, and the urgency of retaining the political initiative, I find problematic. They may have had illusions to one degree or another as well as mistaken policies. Few of us are free of illusions. I know that from my own experience. But before arriving at such a conclusion, one has to study the experience concretely and bear in mind that the revolutionary process is complex in any circumstances. And, in the case of Chile novel too insofar as it was an attempt to move towards socialism along an electoral path free of civil war for the first time.

Moreover, its failure to do so, to achieve its objectives isn’t proof positive that such a path is foreclosed going forward. Such a conclusion, history suggests, would be premature to say the least. In fact, the Chilean experience, understood in all of complexity, is more than suggestive that such a path to socialist transformation is necessary and viable.

I never envied the rich and wealthy, except for moments when I open a bottle of wine and pour some into my glass. I don’t drink Ripple any longer. I upgraded as I got older. But I suspect that the bottle of wine that is served on the patio of some estate in Richville USA is of a better quality than the bottle that finds its way onto my table. And that makes me a bit envious, not to mention pisses me off!

What a great interview of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. I couldn’t help but notice shifts in her thinking toward the Democratic Party, members in Congress, and coalition politics. I wish more on the left possessed a politics and analytical disposition that was equally flexible and dialectical as hers.

Frankly, too many on the left, unlike AOC, are politically stuck. Their categories of analysis – center, right, left – are static and frozen – rather than open ended and fluid. Once political leader or a political/social movement or political coalition are typed, they stay typed. They’re enclosed and remaine in one category or another.

What is more, Joe Biden, it is said, is a “Bourgeois” or “Establishment” politician. The Democratic party’s center of political gravity is frozen in time, dangling somewhere in the neoliberal era. And liberals have no place in this discourse, except as a term of ridicule and opprobrium.

In short, movement, complexity and contradictory locations have no place in this rigid analysis. Political life is lifeless and petrified.

But here’s the problem: If taken too seriously by too many, the winning of next year’s election becomes an unnecessarily steep climb. Luckily most activists have more common sense, not to mention analytical skills.

Hope you enjoy and celebrate Labor Day, the holiday of the the U.S. working class, broadly defined! Roughly 70 per cent or more of the population. And yet, only in alliance with other social constituencies is progress, especially major breaks from the past, possible. If you don’t believe me – and many of you might not – take a look at historical experience, here as well as elsewhere in the world.

This is a Big Deal!!! And the Biden administration made it happen!