Re: Corporate Democrats
Marvin Gandall wrote: Hindery, in effect, accuses members of the US business elite of placing their narrow personal and company interests ahead of their class interests, and the Bush administration of pandering to their selfish needs rather than acting in line with its broader responsibility as the executive committee of the ruling class. As Hindery puts it, we need a team who will, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, 'save capitalism from the capitalists'. This is a flawed analogy. Roosevelt only acted after protests erupted across the USA. He came into office as a fiscal hawk, just as Kerry will. If workers start organizing the kind of strikes that the Trotskyist-led Teamsters did in Minneapolis, then perhaps Kerry will lurch to the left. But then again, Nixon was far more ambitious in his support of environmentalism, affirmative action than any Democrat since. The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets, not to back a bourgeois politician. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Corporate Democrats
The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets, not to back a bourgeois politician. Ironically, this is, itself, a flawed analogy. Militant in the streets is lingo from an era of ascendant working class interests -- in particular, radical lingo from the 60s-70s. (Militancy, itself, is older than that, of course.) By trying to mechanically employ tactics of another era, one can do more damage than good. (Militant in the streets, today, in North America, usually reduces itself to theatre and marginalism.) At any rate -- We are all grown ups and can ally with whatever we wish at any strategic moment and not fear having to lose sight of the reason we gave a shit in the first place. Ken. -- For all these new and evolutionary facts, meanings, purposes, new poetic messages, new forms and expressions, are inevitable. -- Walt Whitman
Re: Corporate Democrats
The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets, not to back a bourgeois politician. Ironically, this is, itself, a flawed analogy. Militant in the streets is lingo from an era of ascendant working class interests -- in particular, radical lingo from the 60s-70s. (Militancy, itself, is older than that, of course.) By trying to mechanically employ tactics of another era, one can do more damage than good. (Militant in the streets, today, in North America, usually reduces itself to theatre and marginalism.) At any rate -- We are all grown ups and can ally with whatever we wish at any strategic moment and not fear having to lose sight of the reason we gave a shit in the first place. Ken. I've seen folks here and elsewhere contemptuously dismiss an independent electoral challenge to the Democratic Party from the left (Nader/Camejo and Greens who support them), an attempt to make voices for peace heard inside the Democratic Party (Kucinich and those who supported him), and now even protests (militant or theatrical) in the streets. I've yet hear them present what they believe to be worth doing, let alone see them actually doing it. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Corporate Democrats
Kenneth Campbell wrote: The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets, not to back a bourgeois politician. Ironically, this is, itself, a flawed analogy. Militant in the streets is lingo from an era of ascendant working class interests -- in particular, radical lingo from the 60s-70s. (Militancy, itself, is older than that, of course.) Why is this an either/or thing? Why can't we, whoever we are, do more than one thing? Why isn't it better to have a bourgeois politician in office who owes a few favors to people like us rather than someone who hates us with a passion? Doug
Re: Corporate Democrats
Doug wrote: Louis: The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets, not to back a bourgeois politician. Me: Ironically, this is, itself, a flawed analogy. Militant in the streets is lingo from an era of ascendant working class interests -- in particular, radical lingo from the 60s-70s. (Militancy, itself, is older than that, of course.) Doug: Why is this an either/or thing? Why can't we, whoever we are, do more than one thing? Why isn't it better to have a bourgeois politician in office who owes a few favors to people like us rather than someone who hates us with a passion? Wel... I do not think it is an either/or thing... I think I said the same thing as you, quoted above, in the last paragraph of that post of mine that you quote... Me: At any rate -- We are all grown ups and can ally with whatever we wish at any strategic moment and not fear having to lose sight of the reason we gave a shit in the first place. That cuts both ways, btw. Ken. -- If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses. -- Lenny Bruce
Re: Corporate Democrats
Kenneth Campbell wrote: Wel... I do not think it is an either/or thing... I think I said the same thing as you, quoted above, in the last paragraph of that post of mine that you quote... Sorry, I wasn't responding to you really, but to the person you quoted. Doug
Re: Corporate Democrats
At 12:18 PM -0400 8/10/04, Doug Henwood wrote: Why isn't it better to have a bourgeois politician in office who owes a few favors to people like us rather than someone who hates us with a passion? Expecting the Democratic Party elite to think that they owe working-class Democrats a few favors is like expecting fraudsters to think that they owe a few favors to their marks. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Corporate Democrats
Yoshie wrote: I've seen folks here and elsewhere contemptuously dismiss an independent electoral challenge to the Democratic Party from the left (Nader/Camejo and Greens who support them), an attempt to make voices for peace heard inside the Democratic Party (Kucinich and those who supported him), and now even protests (militant or theatrical) in the streets. I've yet hear them present what they believe to be worth doing, let alone see them actually doing it. -- That's not entirely fair comment. My impression is that most of the criticisms on the list of the Nader/Camejo ticket haven't been contemptuous -- certainly not any more so than some of the opposing comments directed at them -- but, in any event, we can agree that this kind of tone from both quarters isn't constructive. I think the great majority of contributors to left-wing lists also support strikes and demonstrations, and many participate in them as the opportunity presents itself, although the general level of activity is almost certainly less than your own. This may reflect a sense, which I share, that there has to be evidence of mass sentiment for strikes and demonstrations, and this sentiment almost always surfaces in response to objective threats -- to economic security, in the form of a sharp deterioration in living and working conditions, or from fear of war and other threats to physical security. Unless and until such conditions are present, attempts to conjure up street protests through tireless propaganda by radical intellectuals often only appear frenetic and incomprehensible to those they're aimed at. I'm referring here not only to other progressive intellectuals, but also and perhaps especially to skilled workers, who have a good grasp of their own circumstances and how to deal with them, despite the patronizing way they are often dismissed as having false consciousness. In other words, where mass concern is evident, as it was, for example, in last year's leadup to the war in Iraq, people will turn out to demonstrate. But to imagine you can create strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of mass activity in the streets through the sheer power of ideas, where the conditions for those ideas to take root are largely absent, strikes me as -- well, idealism. I suspect most other people feel this way also, even if they haven't articulated it that way to themselves. I can't speak for others, but I've indicated previously that I think the most meaningful mass political activity which is currently taking place in the US is among rank-and-file Democrats and others you (contemptuously?) refer to as ABB'ers. The current election has the character of a referendum on US economic and foreign policy, which distinguishes it from the usual run-of-the-mill electoral entertainment in liberal democracies, and the unusual intensity of feeling between the Democratic and Republican ranks, and within the left, testifies to the importance attached to it. You may not accept this, but I would welcome it if anti-Bush hostility were expressed in a mass movement towards the more progressive Nader/Camejo ticket. But the objective conditions clearly don't exist for that, and your efforts to build support for such a movement through tireless propaganda do, alas, appear mostly frenetic and incomprehensible -- and antagonistic -- to the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned intellectuals and workers who have consciously determined that a repudiation of the economic and foreign policies of their government requires throwing out the Bush administration. I don't think you'll ever persuade them that goal can be realized by voting Green as opposed to Democratic. As Tariq Ali has noted, a Bush defeat will be interpreted as a repudiation of current US policies by the rest of the world, which is why we outside the States are also watching the election so closely. Finally, I don't think participation in this process is in contradiction to organizing parallel antiwar actions among antiwar Democrats and ABB'ers, as you suggest. It would, in fact, complement such efforts. On the other hand, your preoccupation with the Greens' electoral fortunes goes in the other direction. It is in contradiction to building bridges to, and mobilizing, this massive constituency for more radical action. I hope, respectfully, this helps answer your question about what some of think is worth doing, and not doing. Marv Gandall
Re: Corporate Democrats
At 12:52 PM -0400 8/10/04, Marvin Gandall wrote: But to imagine you can create strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of mass activity in the streets through the sheer power of ideas, where the conditions for those ideas to take root are largely absent, strikes me as -- well, idealism. You are setting up a straw man. No one has suggested here that we can organize a mass action even when and where there is no desire for such an action on the part of people. My posting was in response to the remark that militant demonstrations in the streets are tactics of another era and that protests that are more theatrical than militant are merely marginal. At 12:52 PM -0400 8/10/04, Marvin Gandall wrote: I can't speak for others, but I've indicated previously that I think the most meaningful mass political activity which is currently taking place in the US is among rank-and-file Democrats and others you (contemptuously?) refer to as ABB'ers. The current election has the character of a referendum on US economic and foreign policy, which distinguishes it from the usual run-of-the-mill electoral entertainment in liberal democracies, and the unusual intensity of feeling between the Democratic and Republican ranks, and within the left, testifies to the importance attached to it. A minority of workers, intellectuals, and capitalists probably think that [t]he current election has the character of a referendum on US economic and foreign policy, but that doesn't make it effectively so in practice. At 12:52 PM -0400 8/10/04, Marvin Gandall wrote: But the objective conditions clearly don't exist for that, and your efforts to build support for such a movement through tireless propaganda do, alas, appear mostly frenetic and incomprehensible -- and antagonistic -- to the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned intellectuals and workers who have consciously determined that a repudiation of the economic and foreign policies of their government requires throwing out the Bush administration. I don't think you'll ever persuade them that goal can be realized by voting Green as opposed to Democratic. I don't believe that Nader/Camejo this year will be able to persuade the well-intentioned intellectuals and workers who are committed to voting for Kerry or Bush to do otherwise, nor do I think that persuading them to change their mind in time for the November election is the task of this year. It will be politically significant, however, if all who have said that they support Nader/Camejo -- to say nothing of all who have said that they consider voting for Nader/Camejo -- will actually be able to vote for them, and I intend my remarks for this sector of the working-class population -- roughly 2-7% of the voting-age population, even if we count only those who have actually expressed support in the polls, which is to say, approximately 4.4 to 15.4 million people. At 12:52 PM -0400 8/10/04, Marvin Gandall wrote: Finally, I don't think participation in this process is in contradiction to organizing parallel antiwar actions among antiwar Democrats and ABB'ers, as you suggest. It would, in fact, complement such efforts. All indications are that those who want to elect Kerry at all costs have made conscious efforts to silence voices against the occupations, keeping Nader/Camejo off the ballots, toning down the DNC protests, etc. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Corporate Democrats
Yoshie wrote: My posting was in response to the remark that militant demonstrations in the streets are tactics of another era and that protests that are more theatrical than militant are merely marginal. Shame on the person who wrote that horrible thing you respond to... Ken. -- Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power. -- Benito Mussolini
