I'm out of the loop, having long ago lost interest in the leftist subculture when it functions as a subculture, thinking about itself and its identity, which one would think only people who live privileged lives can do.
I don't need the CP rhetoric to understand such basic principles. And if the ultraleft is that stupid now, what's to say about it, but the situation of the Trotskyists in the 1930s was remarkably different, and thus a poor comparison to today's subcultural politics. No, I don't see American capitalism collapsing, but there are severe dangers to its political and economic stability, not to mention global environmental damage. I don't see a revival of New Deal social liberalism, which I'd been hoping for since the Reagan years. Things seem to be getting worse and worse. A new movement is necessary to force fundamental reforms, but I have no idea if and how it will take shape. Whether it can combat social disintegration remains an open question. The old factory worker scenario is not what it was in the USA, and the globalization of capital involves a whole new challenge, but you knew that already. I don't agree about Obama being in touch with the masses, but I draw different conclusions from his deceit than do the left sectarians. It is too late to attempt to "expose" him; once he gains the nomination, the die is cast. More on this below. Nader is going to get hurt, because the activism he wants to see is quite a different matter from pulling a lever for a candidate. The two should not be conflated. The average person will only see Nader as a protest vote, and a spoiler, and his reputation among the average persons who respected him will be severely damaged. We are in a bad situation politically, in a very unsophisticated nation. Sure, people on the left and liberals who like Nader will debate the merits of his candidacy, but there are plenty more people who view Nader as a spoiler and will only hate him. He can't be effective as a presidential candidate in any way that will make a difference to the masses of voters. They won't check out his web site or become activist public citizens. Nader made his point in 2000. Sure, if he can stimulate public dialogue, organize activists, get public funds for the Green Party, maybe he can do some good. But from the moment the Democratic nominees are decided, there really is nothing that can be done within the overall electoral process other than to defeat the Republicans, and not just in the presidential race. Then kick the Dems in the ass afterwards. Understand that Obamamania is very fragile and only affects selected components of the white voting population, also among Democrats. McCain could win, and that will make things much worse. The time to oppose Obama was at the beginning of his campaign, or when he started to streamroll. But now there's nothing that can be done other than to minimize the damage that will ensue now that the right is gearing up to smear Obama as it already smeared the Clintons. Another point about Nader. Though unlike Obama in certain ways at this juncture (i.e. Obama is a wheeler-dealer and no longer an "activist"), Nader shares one suspicious trait in common with Obama: he attracts people across the political spectrum. He brags about this, which is understandable in a politically backward nation such as this. But it means two things: (1) possible competition among the "independents", weakening the Dems (but probably by little); (2) a political ambiguity in Nader's political role, which matters in an electoral arena in a way it doesn't necessarily in his public interest work. This latter point takes some explaining, but I'm not up to it. Yeah, the Dems are pricks, but if one has been shut out of the governmental process, then perhaps there's a better way to intervene than going the third party route when it can't produce results as a real political party. I'm not sure what is meant about the election as the main arena of class struggle. I'm guessing that there are two parallel arenas which are unlikely to intersect meaningfully between the Dem Convention and the general election. Getting Obama elected is one task which has an entirely different logic from autonomous activism. Confusing the two can only invite disaster. Take this position statement and the ensuing bloggorhea as a case in point: Holding Barack Obama Accountable http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=529&Itemid=34 I agree generally with Bruce Dixon, with one serious caveat. One respondent actually says what I said, comparing this election campaign season to American Idol. The defenders of Obama are all idiots, and the detractors are all fairly perceptive. My caveat: it's too late to hold Obama's feet to the fire as a presidential candidate. A national presidential election is not a situation comparable to the other elections in which Obama ran. His mealy-mouth crap may get him elected, maybe not. But what does it mean to demand he take a progressive stand now? It's all about maximizing the vote for him and minimizing the opposition. If he beats Hillary, there's nothing else that can be done. Organizing an independent movement that will be needed whoever wins is another matter from simply getting Obama to make promises that could hurt his chances or that he won't keep. He has a number of liabilities in the fight against McCain, and the only thing that Obama's supporters can do is to minimize them. Progressives can do nothing in the electoral arena but try to defeat the Republicans without deluding themselves as to what is really going on or thinking they can fool others with their own delusions. Note the interchange between Adolph Reed Jr. and Blanding. Both are wrong in the conclusions drawn, for different reasons. Blanding is completely full of shit; his analogies are weak, wish-fulfillment delusions. Reed's analysis is much closer to the truth of how Obama got to where he is and where he more or less stands. However, the direction his presidency will take is another question that Reed has not thought through. Reed is wrong that Obama deals a blow to social justice, etc. That blow has already been struck. He can't make things worse and has no incentive to do so. Obama as a self-proclaimed mediator is no radical, but he also lacks an aggressive reactionary agenda. He will probably try to split the difference among opposing positions. This means that what he stands for will be partly determined by the actual balance of political forces. If progressive action is sufficiently organized (outside of his orbit), he will play that off against the ultra-reactionaries. The real issue is how viable his presidency will be if he strains at his leash too hard and moves too far from the Clinton-Bush-1 new world order. Obama's racial profile remains very important is spite of his race-neutral demeanor. It could work as camouflage of course; it could also weaken his position as a free agent though it will gain the US more prestige abroad, at least initially. It is true that Obamamania is deluded and dangerous, and should be rigorously combatted among progressives. But beyond that, a sober assessment of the behind-the-scenes situation (insofar as that is possible to ascertain) is necessary. How did Obama get as far as he did, and what is likely to happen should he be elected? I have yet to see a thorough examination of both these questions. But let me underscore my main point: activism has to operate along two tracks, which may not intersect very well and which may make different demands. Once the die is cast, all that matters is defeating the Republicans. Holding Obama's feet to the fire in the general election means absolutely nothing except for maximizing the votes for him. This is an entirely distinct matter from the progressive movement's ultimate agenda and organizing goals. At 09:38 AM 2/26/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >^^^^ >CB: Yes, after obligatory anti-CP note, what they actually say is , >of course, the most sensible on the US left. > >^^^^^ > >CB: I may be too cloistered in the "local" left lists, but there >are a lot of people on these lists who do have the ultra-left >inability to differentiate between the US fascistic right and the US >bourgeois center. It goes back to the 30's, Trotskyism ,etc. > >^^^^^ > >CB: Ok. Myself, I don't see things on the verge of falling apart, >either way. I think there is a crisis for the US ruling class. I >don't see it as a system threatening crisis. I think there is >potential for reforms on the level of the New Deal of the 30's. > >^^^^ > >So one could say that everything hangs on the >elections, regardless of the various arenas of class struggle. > >^^^ >CB: I think Webb is saying that the elections _are_ the main arena >of class struggle right now. He's taking the opposite of the >ultra-left position which is that elections are non-poliitical and a >diversion from the class struggle. This is the fundamental >difference between the left and ultra-left today. > >^^^^ >CB: Yea, I suspect that Nader is going to get significantly dissed >this time. As to Obama, I wouldn't underestimate anything he does or >says right now. He has proven in practice that he is in touch with >masses of Americans much more than we are on this little group of left lists. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
