Editor,
In an article entitled “Election Madness” in the March issue of The Progressive, Howard Zinn, the historian and controversial author, states: “Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.”

Certainly it is true that voting in this bourgeois society may seem to be meaningless and all about money. However, though I understand what Zinn is saying, I, as a revolutionary communist, have some problems with Zinn’s conclusion, as well as with some other points that he makes in the article.

First of all, I think that Zinn’s use of the term “concerned citizens” is far too ambiguous. Who are these “concerned citizens” and what do they advocate? It would seem to me that Christian right wingers, Right-to-Lifers and even the Klan would attempt to label themselves as “concerned citizens” and take direct action. So would this be democracy in action? I think not.

Concerning the question of democracy, I want to emphasize that Zinn does not mention socialism even one time in his article. So a person would have to conclude that Zinn believes that capitalism can become a true democracy if only the “concerned citizens” would take direct action, whatever that might be. But in my view, capitlaism cannot become a true democracy regardless of the fact that “concerned citizens” are taking direct action. Also, in my view, the real path to a democracy is the movement for socialist revolution, but Zinn does not even consider this.

Instead, he claims that the Democratic Party can be pressured by “concerned citizens” to bring about social justice and end imperialist war. But the Democratic Party is a bourgeois party and devoted to the preservation of the capitalist profit system and it is necessary for revolutionaries to work to help workers become aware that it is necessary to break with this party and build a revolutionary workers’ party to fight for socialism.

This brings us to the question of revolutionary leadership. Zinn, who is influenced by anarchism, does not see the need for a revolutionary party, and does in fact, bow to spontenaeity. In conclusion, Zinn comes off sounding like some sort of liberal reformist.