What should the political program of an autonomous socialist collective in a small town like Houghton/Hancock be, and how ought that program be realized? Looking at different movements and political traditions around the world and across history, we see a few competing visions for enacting socialism at the municipal level. While a complete survey of these visions is beyond the scope of this essay, it is worth starting with at least a basic typology.
First off, we ought to define municipal socialism. At risk of stating the obvious, I believe that in order for a movement, theory, or tendency to fall into this category, it must be a) municipal and b) socialist. In countries like the United States that are divided into municipal jurisdictions, socialist organizing unavoidably occurs within a municipality of some sort, but this does not necessarily make it municipal. For instance, campaigns to elect socialists to state or federal office, and organizations that primarily organize around such efforts, do not meet this criterion. Rather, a municipal socialist program must be primarily engaged with building socialism on the local level. As we will see, this can take many forms, and may engage with established municipal governments in different ways and to different degrees.
“Socialism” is, of course, itself a contentious term. For the purposes of this essay, I will say that a movement or tendency is socialist if it has some kind of proletarian class character. This class character may derive from some kind of direct administration by the working class (the sort of municipal socialism for which I will advocate below), but could also include control by elected officials or a vanguard party acting on behalf of the working class. In the last few decades in the United States, municipalities have made attempts to become increasingly democratic, making use of public meetings and referenda under the banner of “public participation.” While these efforts are laudable, and in some cases create opportunities to further a municipal socialist agenda, they are not in and of themselves socialist because they do not specifically target, represent, or engage with the working class. (In fact, these institutions tend to be dominated by middle- and owning-class interests unless specific efforts are made to avoid this)[1].
Having defined our term of interest, we can now examine possible visions of a municipal socialist future, and consider how they might be instituted. To start, ought a socialist program be content with installing socialists in positions of power within the existing municipal bureaucracy, or should it rather seek to remake local power structures entirely? In the Upper Midwest (though as far as I know, not in the Copper Country in particular) starting around the turn of the 20th century, the former model was popular among socialists, and enjoyed a degree of success. This movement, most fully fleshed out in the Milwaukee city government, was known derisively as “Sewer Socialism” by some leftist critics who objected to their focus on mere points of policy and public utilities. This term was later taken up as a point of pride by Milwaukee municipal socialists, who pointed to the measurable benefit of their tactics to city residents. Sewer Socialism did indeed enjoy popularity and make undeniably positive changes to Milwaukee and other cities with elected socialist leaders. Though some Sewer Socialists remained in office through the McCarthy era, the Cold War was its death knell and the movement died out by the end of the 1960s. It also failed to reckon with racial issues, and delivered far more material improvements to the white poor than to Black and other minority working-class communities [2].
Today, the Democratic Socialists of America have attempted what could be considered a revival of Sewer Socialism in several large American cities. These efforts have succeeded in influencing particular policy changes, and in normalizing socialists as players in those cities’ politics. However, DSA electoral efforts have also proved vulnerable to co-option into the liberalism of the Democratic Party, a damning reality for an organization which often seeks to “push Democrats left.” It can certainly be debated how much of the shortcomings of the Milwaukee Sewer Socialists and the DSA are inherent to their theoretical and strategic priorities, and how much are contingent on the larger historical context in which the movements exist(ed). But even if the problem is one of context, the fact remains that such electoral movements have experienced mixed success within that context, and have in no case proven themselves to be a bridge leading from liberalism to socialism. Given that reality, I believe we might do well to look elsewhere if we hope to affect either true racial justice or self-sustaining working-class rule. To sustain itself, electorally-minded democratic socialism requires a small number of powerful officials to consistently judge the interests of the people they claim to represent, and implement effective policies accordingly. A few poorly-considered or out-of-touch decisions could quickly lead to a loss of public support, as could reactionary propaganda from within or without. In comparison, direct rule by the working class has much more staying power once implemented; the proletariat might make mistakes, but is unlikely to vote itself out of office. Historical systems of autonomous proletarian democracy, from the Paris Commune to Russia’s early city and rural Soviets to revolutionary Catalonia, certainly encountered internal problems, but only at gunpoint did they cede power from the hands of workers altogether. The question becomes, then, how to institute such a system.
Three basic, though not mutually-exclusive, visions for implementing local working-class rule can be termed as follows: entryism, dual power, and separatism. Entryism, generally speaking, is the process by which a coordinated group of people joins a larger institution with the goal of influencing it from the inside. In our case, an entryist strategy would be one that seeks to install socialists in local office, not merely to enact progressive policy, but with the intention of instituting a socialist governmental system from the top down. The most famous attempt at local-government entryism is probably that of the Militant tendency of Britain in the 1980s. The Militants, a Trotskyist group, attempted a double program of entryism, first gaining positions of prominence within the Labour Party. Next, they sought to use this position as a springboard off of which to attain political office. This plan came closest to succeeding when they briefly gained control over the Liverpool City Council, but this success was short-lived and the group was ultimately expelled from the Labour Party [3]. As with the more moderate form of socialist electoralism discussed above, local-government entryism on its own has not just limited potential to live up to its radical posturing, but also a longevity problem. That said, it is not an unworthy strategy, so long as it is used in conjunction with bottom-up tactics.
A dual-power strategy of implementing municipal socialism involves the creation of new, democratic proletarian institutions parallel to the existing municipal power structure, in the hopes of eventually supplanting the latter with the former. Murray Bookchin’s theory of Libertarian Municipalism presents one theory of dual power in the municipal context. His approach involves the establishment of directly-democratic neighborhood assemblies without the sanction of the city government. Initially, these assemblies might have little in the way of efficacy or legitimacy, but with adequate effort they could prove themselves to respond to working people’s needs in a way that the centralized municipality does not. Over time, Bookchin hopes, these new institutions would empower people to make political decisions for themselves, and gradually replace the city government as the center of local power [4]. Other visions of dual power that could be enacted on a local level include politically-engaged unions and cooperatives [5]. In order to further a municipal-socialist program, these should operate with the intention of democratizing the local economy, potentially even side-by-side with a system of Bookchinian assemblies.
Our final vision for achieving working-class democracy on the municipal level is separatism. This is the tactic that was favored by Finnish socialists in the Copper Country in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Separatism involves establishing entirely new communities, and even municipalities, along socialist lines. Finnish enclaves in the Upper Peninsula were largely built around farming, and featured cooperative economies reminiscent of rural communities back in Finland. Their internal politics were generally participatory and democratic. Following the establishment of the Soviet Union and the Comintern, these enclaves faced a choice: whether or not to use proceeds from their cooperatives to fund the Workers Party of America (later known as Communist Party USA). Some communities voted for, and others against, leading to a split between the “White” and “Red Finns.” Almost all Finnish cooperatives all eventually succumbed to internal conflict (and, in the Red cooperatives’ case, anticommunism). No Red cooperatives still operate today, and only a small number of White cooperatives remain.
Establishing entire new communities structured around socialism is certainly a tall order, today even more so than in the 1890s. Additionally, history shows that communities like these can become embroiled in their own internal conflicts, to the detriment of both the project of global socialism and the communities’ own longevity. Still, this strategy has a few things going for it. First, such communities need not be entire municipalities, at least not at first. Establishing cooperative living arrangements in the Copper Country, even within a single building or in the form of a commune or land project on a small property, could function as a “scale model” preceding larger-scale experiments further down the line. By demonstrating the efficacy of direct democracy and collective ownership on a small scale, activists could familiarize local residents with the skills and principles involved, making their implementation on a larger scale seem less far-fetched. Furthermore, the local heritage of communities organized around these principles, which existed in the region within living memory, could be emphasized in order to sell the concept to the Finnish-American public. If cooperative communities were successful enough, they could even incentivize socialist-minded people from elsewhere to move to the area.
As I stated above, these three strategies are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they have the potential to coexist quite harmoniously. Effective entryism can clear the way for dual-power projects that might otherwise be at odds with local governments, and maintain good relationships with separatist communities. Autonomous separatist projects are themselves a form of dual power, and could function as centers from which other dual-power initiatives could be organized. These principles are intentionally open-ended, and can manifest and combine in endless possible configurations. I do not mean to propose a specific plan or program for socialism in the Copper Country, but merely suggest some visions and guidelines along which organizers might proceed. Other strategies that I have neglected to mention entirely will doubtless be part of this project as well. What I hope to emphasize, perhaps even above these specific principles, is the need for a diversity of tactics and the fostering of a socialist culture.
By pursuing multiple strategic avenues simultaneously, we do not merely hedge our bets in the hopes that one strategy is “the successful one.” Rather, a diversity of tactics creates the potential for symbiosis between different aspects of the movement to arise organically. Furthermore, it creates more spaces in which social creativity and radical democracy can take root and demonstrate their effectiveness to the wider community. Rather than a single-minded project, municipal socialism becomes a cultural phenomenon; not a job or chore, but a source of collective joy and empowerment.
In fostering this culture, socialists in the Copper Country must walk a fine line. We must be careful not to alienate or make enemies of community members or institutions (except blatantly fascist ones); rather, maintaining goodwill and mutual benefit with non-socialist aspects of the community is essential. Yet, we must also be as honest about our socialist identity and principles as possible. We do not seek to “infiltrate” or “take over” local institutions to their detriment and our own gain, but rather to democratize and collectivize them for the benefit of everyone. Participating in the local community as open socialists normalizes our presence and beliefs, an essential prerequisite to any practical success achieving local socialism. It also establishes a banner under which we can rally, fostering collective action and identity and safeguarding against co-option into the liberal mainstream. Of course, calling ourselves socialists will lead some people to oppose or hate us no matter what we do, namely hardline reactionary anticommunists and the local bourgeoisie who stand to lose from our program. But by making friends and spreading our message, we have the potential for political success.
I intend for this essay to be the first in a larger series, each one delving into different questions related to the history and future of socialism in the Copper Country. Potential future topics include environmental issues, industry, tourism, land tenure, Land Back, MTU, seasonal and transient residents, and the connection to larger movements. If you enjoyed reading this, please support Bazhiba’igan and stay tuned for future installments.