First I'm new to the list and joined because I read some of Mark Jones'
analysis on the relationship between environmental restraints and Marxism.
As I try to resolve many conflicting thoughts and theories over the growing
concentration of power and the IMO inevitable dire consequences for the
world's poor of a meltdown, two trends on the former left dismay me:
1) Belief that human ingenuity can always overcome the environmental
constraints posed by increased consumption and rising population. This view
is expounded by the former RCP, now a small clique around LM magazine, but
also by orthodox Lenninist grouplets. They welcome globalisation and our
increasing dependence on technocrats, as it will boost the impetus for a
world-wide revolution.
2) Belief that the left exists to fight the extreme xenophobic right and
promote internationalism. As regards the first point, we only need ask,
whose internationalism? While I agree wholeheartedly we face dangers of
growing authoritarianism, restrictions of free speech and manipulation of
age-old ethnic conflicts, I fail to see how the main danger comes from
grouplets the mainstream press defines as "Neo-fascist". Indeed many
tendencies on the left use their militant anti-fascism as an excuse to limit
free speech. Recent events in the Balkans show us why free speech and
fearless open debate on all current and historical issues is much more
important than the misplaced fear that the working class will flock to
fringe xenophobes unaided by the mainstream media. It is in fact the
prejudices of the mainstream media that should concern us most.
Returning to the posting below, IMHO the main enemy of ordinary working and
unemployed people the world over is the power concentrated in a handful of
transnational corps and a single superpower. No need to preach to the
converted. Bush and Gore are clearly in the same camp. As a non-US citizen,
Gore frightens me slightly more. I guess my conscience would tell me to vote
Nader, although he is amazingly woolly on foreign policy and has not
categorically said he would opposed any military actions in the Balkans or
cut the US Attack budget significantly.
Ironically Buchanan is the only main candidate to promise to pull US troops
from overseas deployments and to have opposed Kosovo air strikes and the
Gulf war. While his domestic agenda may be reactionary, a more isolationist
US is just what the rest of the world needs. IMO the US funded Nazi Germany
not only to defeat the Soviet Union, but also to devastate Europe and
subjugate the defeated (Germany), humiliated (France) and debilitated
(Britain) powers to US hegemony. In practice Germany has no foreign policy
and any deviance is soon described as attempts to resurrect the Third Reich,
France is allowed some autonomy in Francophone Africa (although the CIA does
its best to destabilise various regimes there) and Brits have always been
their most faithful lieutenant. The collapse of the former Soviet Union and
dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia have actually weakened Europe,
increased migratory pressure and crime.
These new realities present the left with a dilemma. How can we argue
against immigration controls or in favour of multiethnic harmony, when we
are patently unable to offer any alternative to the WTO, IMF and WB economic
agenda? i.e. without investing billions in education, training and
infrastructure Europe cannot accommodate the millions who would like to
migrate, but neither can European countries promote an alternative model of
development that would free people in the poor world from dependence on
TNCs. Increasingly we will see nationalist challenges to the New World Order
and the pseudo-progressive will beat the drums of the war for the sake of
internationalism, while their paymasters, the TNCs, WTO, IMF and WB, are
busy starving hundreds of millions in the third world. After the fall of
Milosevic will Serbs be refunded 60 billion for NATO's destruction of their
country. No, they'll be expected to pay USD 55 billion to compensate Bosnia
and Croatia and as expected these funds will go straight to NWO
institutions.
Yugoslavia is a merely a sign of things to come. If Europe attempts to gain
preferential access to the Caspian oil fields, the US State Dept will start
their European destabilisation plan, reevoking their heroic fight against
Nazism (i.e. bombing innocent civilains and striking deals with minoir
despots). While the Milosevic's of this world may seem unpalatable and
definitely served the interests of the US, we should never forget NATO's
lies and the fact that Iraqi kids are still dying due to US/UK sanctions and
bombing, while Israeli defence forces get away with murder with the full
diplomatic protection of the US State Dept. Yesterday Channel 4 interviewd
James Rubin about the Middle East, today they had a field day with Tim Judah
and Mishe Glenny about Yugoslavia with not a word about NATO's crimes and
destablisation plans. While I have some respect for Mishe (at least he
opposed bombing), he described events there as a revolution. Well Mishe,
just wait until the IMF/WB/NATO coalition tell Kostunica what to do.
If we need a united front, it had better be in opposition to the real enemy.
Regards
Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Amiri Baraka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 1:25 AM
Subject: RE: [CrashList] Re: [BRC-DISC] Re:NAder isn't arousing anything
The split between the Social Democrats and Spartacists & other Communist
fractions was the basis for Hindenburg then Hitler. And all, then trade
unionists, Jews, Gypsies, were wasted.
The "upper hand" they had vanished based on wht Lenin called Otzovism and
Liquidationism. One group too revolutionary to Unite, the other making
opportunist submission to the right.
We have no upper hand or not much of a hand at all because we are SPLIT now.
Nader's one man band whereby, read the platform, he wants to do quality
control on imperialism at best can move the prostitute a trifle to the Left,
which is good. Though the dangs have let Buchanan emerge, with a "colored"
woman v.p. on the ticket to move the electorate back rightward. Thus , they
feel, neutralizing the Democrat'x Lieberman move, maent to reunify the split
Black-Jewish political affinity of the Civil Rights days. Feeling that
perhaps that they can pull the feminist trend with the Blacks, plus the
foflks who can believe the bs "Populist" tip smeared like mayonaise over
Buchanan's the cold right essence of Buch's line.
As I said previously, Nadir's "campaign", can only have positive meaning in
practical politics if it is one aspect of a national anti-imperialist
electoral (and with practice around other key issues) United Front, Lenin's
Left Bloc, if you will. "March Separately , Strike Together!". Otherwise it
is merely petty bourgeois grandstanding. Another sectarian "get rich quick"
scheme!
Neither an essentially Consumer Advocacy based campaign or Environmentalism,
both largely petty bourgeois priorities, are at the cutting edge of mass
democratic struggle, but joined with a broad spectrum of other
anti-imperialist organizations and movements, we can begin the arduous
process of principled Unity and even at this point force some vital
concessions from the Democrats. To "go it alone" is more likely to be the
Texas Cheney-Saw murderer's enabler.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 8:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [CrashList] Re: [BRC-DISC] Re:Nader isn't arousing anything
Response to Amiri Baraka's post from JoeMosley.
Subj: [CrashList] Re: [BRC-DISC] Re:Nader isn't arousing anything
Date: 9/5/00 6:58:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Amiri Baraka)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Art McGee)
THE NADIR OF SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL POSTURING
Weimar is recycling it's eerie presence , tightening around us today!
Ralph Nader's feverish personal "campaign for president" is useful in the
sense that in a general way, he raises some issues that , hopefully, like
Bradley's gesture, moves the Gore wagon slightly to the Left. But for Nader
to insist that his individualistic petty bourgeois for a moral remaking of
the Imperialist state is politically advanced as the practical politics of
our time place and condition, is sad and dangerous. Because, only the
slowest among us can not see that if Nader takes his , in essence,
politically solipsistic show all the way to the hoop, then he will quite
simply help Bush get elected!
JoeMosley - So what, would that be the end of the world? We survived Nixon
and Bush, we have Clinton, now you hope that we will "move the Gore wagon
slightly to the left." Is that what you would call progress? I don't! I
believe that the progressive members of our society have treated Clinton and
will treat Gore as how a teenager who has been sodomized by her boy-friend,
is hurt, disturbed and ambivalent, but does not make a fuss because she
believes that he loves her. While if she was penetrated by another, she
would
scream rape and seek reprisals. If a Republican was in the White House,
progressives would not forgive and forget: the sordid Lewinski affair; the
"three strikes and you are out" mandatory judicial sentencing; the mandatory
punitive sentences for "minor" crack violations compared to the "slap on the
wrist" for "minor" cocaine violations; the unfair implementation of
"welfare
to work-fare" reforms; and the list could go on...
The politics of individual moral cant is the "protest" politics of the
petty bourgeois "loyal opposition" crying out because they think Imperialism
can be cleaned up enough (consumer advocacy) for them & some of we, to be
INCLUDED.
First, Nader is not that much Left of Gore. His recent speeches, while
trying to tighten up his "gap" vis a vis Blacks and oppressed nationalities,
is still saccharin covered generality, in the main. Nader is a consumer
advocate, at worst, quality control for imperialism's commodities.
JoeMosley - Please tread carefully Mr. Baraka, in your zeal to trivialize
Nader, your bias is showing. You conveniently fail to recognize that Ralph
Nader and Winona LaDuke were nominated by the Association of State Green
Parties, they were drafted by the ASGP and they are running on the ASGP
platform. They are also building a party that is free from the corrupting
influence of greedy corporations, a party that is challenging the hegemony
of
the corporate controlled Democratic and Republican parties. Win or lose, the
Green Party will change the political paradigm, detain the creeping
plutocracy (what I believe you call Imperialism) that is perverting our
democratic institutions and facilitate the emergence of other political
parties.
NADER CAN ONLY BE ULTIMATELY USEFUL TO THE PEOPLE, IN A PRACTICAL
POLITICAL SENSE, IF HE AGREES TO AGGRESSIVELY HELP CREATE A LEFT BLOC.. OF
THE MAIN ANTI IMPERIALST ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS AND DEMAND CONCRETE
CONCESSIONS FROM GORE!!----
JoeMosley - There is a very important kernel of wisdom in this statement, Mr
Baraka, but I would phrase it differently, i.e., NADER CAN BE USEFUL TO THE
PEOPLE, IN A PRACTICAL POLITICAL SENSE, IF HE AGREES TO AND SUCCEEDS IN
HELPING TO CREATE A BLOC OF ANTI-PLUTOCRACY ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS
TO
DEFEAT BOTH GORE AND BUSH. Please be consistent Mr. Baraka, in one sentence
you belittle those who think they can clean up "Imperialism" and in another
sentence you want to create a bloc to demand concessions from the "High
Priest" of the "Imperialists." You cannot have it both ways Sir!
Some of the main groups that should be in such a bloc would be
Marxist-Leninist Organizations, including the CPUSA, Freedom Socialists,
Committee of Correspondence, Social Democratic organizations like the DSA,
SDA, , Puerto Rican Socialist Party (The Trots and Anarchists abhor the
dirty
bourgeois electoral arena, that's one characteristic of their objective
Opposition to Revolutionary Democratic Struggle, the only real precursor and
path to Socialism!) Anti Imperialist Organizations ...both multi national
and
national in form; e.g., Black Latino, Asian, Native Peoples groups, Trade
Unions, Black Radical Congress, Black United Front, RNA, NAACP, Pan
Africanist, Professional and Academic Organizations, Cultural and Arts
Groups, Media Groups, Nation of Islam and American Muslim Mission,
Independent Publications and Presses. Consumer Coops, Agricultural Coops,
Advocacy Groups, particularly around Welfare, Immigration, Police Brutality.
Police Control Boards,
The Congressional and State Legislative Black and Latino Caucuses, ABC
LEO, Individual Politcal and Activist figures,and their organizations, e.g.,
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, RAndall Robinson, Marable, Gates, West, Afro
American, Latino Publishers Groups, Minority and Small Business
Organizations, Church related groups,
JoeMosley - I would "give my right arm" to see a cohesive bloc of these
organizations, but their potential would be wasted "demanding concrete
concessions from Gore. In my opinion, a bloc of this magnitude could ese
organizations could adopt
the documents of the others without making major changes in their own
document. How many of the organizations that you mention are in the same
situation? Instead of trying to derail the Nader campaign why not support
this effort as a first step in a movement to dismantle the "duopoly" and
create a level playing field for all parties?
Either Nader and the Greens abandon the isolated glamour of moral
pontification as a Loyal Opposition to Imperialism or they risk the Weimar
replay of helping elect the far Right, BUSH 2. I know the choice is between
a
Murderer (B-2) and a Prostitute (Gore rimes with W....) but folks, that is
literally where we are. Being serenaded by the dismally ignorant chorus of
Trot-Anarchists, one of who said, "I bet you voted for Clinton". To which we
say, I bet you voted (by non-voting) for Bush. (Note to All , read The
Casebook on Weimar, Univ of Calif, to see how close we are to Weimar 2!
Hitler came to power because of a split between Communists and Social
Democrats!} Amiri Baraka
JoeMosley - Mr. Baraka, I believe your Weimar analogy is a bit off base. In
Weimar, the Communists and Social Democrats had the upper-hand which they
lost because of the split. Today Democrats and Republicans have the
upper-hand, we have nothing. What can we lose? In conclusion, why vote for
the lesser of two evils when there is a better choice?
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
