It is undeniable that the great social movements of the last half of the 20th century changed the terrain on which millions live and how they understand the world in profound and enduring ways. And yet their transformative capacity, that is their ability to move to a new, higher stage of struggle and possibility, was circumscribed by the limited participation of the main sections of the labor movement. Few articulated this better than MLK in the 1960s. What was true in the last century is no less true in this century.

It was a colossal mistake, but not surprising decision that US forces entered Afghanistan with “guns ablazing” and in the language of fighting “international terrorism” nearly two decades ago, after years earlier destabilizing a secular democratic-progressive, anti-imperialist government and country. (I met Babrak Kamal, that government’s first Prime Minister in Moscow in 1981 ) But does anyone think that a slower drawn down and exit from Afghanistan now would result in something much different from what we seeing? The only alternative to what is happening is endless occupation. And that we know after nearly 20 years is no alternative

Political agitation aimed at the Biden administration that ignores the narrow advantage of 1 that Democrats hold in the Senate and the resistance of a handful of Senate Democrats to the more far reaching proposals of the administration – not to mention the vagaries of the socio-economic environment, shifting public opinion, and the main lines of attack of the whole right wing apparatus – is problematic at best. At worst, it fails to appreciate the complicated nature and tactical challenges of this moment if we hope to move the legislative needle in a progressive direction and increase Democratic Congressional majorities in next year’s election.

A problem in social justice and left circles is a hesitancy, even a silence, in expressing a positive attitude to the Biden administration. I realize that on some issues – especially internationally – the administration’s posture is more than problematic, but on many other issues, it is breaking with neoliberalism and challenging white nationalist authoritarianism. It success in doing so will in large measure determine the outcome of the midterm elections, not to mention the day to day living circumstances of tens of millions.

Thus to take a standoffish or relentlessly critical position toward the Biden administration isn’t principled politics. It is, instead, a failure to understand the dynamics of left center unity and what is will take to successfully surmount the existential dangers of this conjuncture.

In the 1930s, the Communist Party, which evolved into the largest organization on the left at the time, didn’t make these mistakes. It made mistakes for sure, but not along these lines.

The divisions within the ruling circles of the US are sharper than they have been since, I would suggest, the early 1930s. The singular event then that precipitated the split was the onset of the Great Depression and the contending and contentious views within elite circles as to how to surmount the implosion of the economy.

Today, the divisions are traceable, not to one event, but, in my mind, to four, occurring more or less coterminously. One was the near total meltdown of the global economy followed by a slow, uneven recovery; another was the historic, and to many unexpected, election of the first African American, Barack Obama, to the presidency. A third was the surge of struggles possessing a progressive, radical, and anti-racist nature and on a scale not seen for some time, in ever. And, finally, the reality and consequences of climate change.

Broadly speaking, two different approaches within ruling circles to this confluence of events (or social processes) have taken shape. One section of the ruling class supports an approach to this tangle of events (or social processes) along white nationalist, plutocratic authoritarian lines. The other favors – and not without contradictions – its antipode, that is, a renovated capitalism, that is more egalitarian, democratic, ecologically sustainable, and responsive to popular democratic pressures. It embraces reforms that only a year or two ago it would consider anathema.

This split is (or should be) of more than academic interest to any individual, movement, coalition, and parties that have an interest in a more just, egalitarian, and ecologically sustainable world. Ignoring it would be folly and self destructive. The movements in the 1930s didn’t make such a mistake. They rightly adjusted their strategy and tactics to take into account these differences that are fundamental. Class against class was replaced by coalition politics that stretched from FDR to the Communist Party. And it made all the difference in the world. Let’s hope that today’s movement has such wisdom!