====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On 12/01/2011 13:24, Louis Proyect wrote: > Because the ulterior motive is to stigmatize "extremism". This morning I > am watching MSNBC news hosted by a former Republican Congressman named Joe > Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski (Zbigniew's daughter) and all they are > talking about is the need to ratchet down the rhetoric on both the left > and the right. I realise this is your fear, but it is misplaced. The Left does not engage in 'extremism' of this kind. The fact that it's being presented by the media in this way is a predictable effort at obfuscation, which we should not buy into. We have nothing to be afraid of. The Left is not doing anything remotely equivalent or analogous to what the Palinites and the Tea Partiers are doing, and we should be saying so, and telling the Jon Stewarts of this world to fuck off. > It doesn't matter if the rightwing ratchets down its > rhetoric. They have a surrogate in Obama who is carrying out their agenda. It does matter, actually. This 'rhetoric' is part of the political mobilization of business-based groups to prevent the Democratic base from achieving moderately social democratic policies like decent healthcare, etc. Forcing the Right into retreat would leave the Left in a better place to apply pressure to the administration, which is otherwise going to come exclusively from the Right. Frankly, you're missing a huge open goal here: this should be the end of the Tea Party as a mainstream political movement. They should be finished, and the Left should be chucking dirt on the grave. The argument that there's essentially no difference between the Palinites and the Democrats, that the Dems are basically surrogates for the Palinites, is also mistaken at best. There are differences, not merely those within the spectrum of pro-capitalist policymaking, but also in terms of the base they each relate to. Those differences do not make the Democrats allies of the Left or the working class, but they should shape how the Left responds. > Also, I take strong exception to Richard referring to "any protection for > immigrants" as if this has something to do with the Obama administration. > In fact, more undocumented workers are being thrown out of the country > than under Bush. Indeed, the capitalist crisis is driving the state to ramp up repression and racism against immigrants. There are some sections of capital who want to go harder than others, and they're backing the Tea Party reactionaries. The Dems aren't giving the Tea Party everything they want. Giffords was specifically targeted on this issue, despite being a fairly mundane conservative Democrat. So, the point here would be that the Tea Party wishes to treat as communist totalitarianism any position that isn't as completely brutal as theirs. But all this was obvious in what I said, which makes it all the more mysterious what you're taking "strong exception to". To return to the issue motivating your stance, I think you should reconsider the idea that left-wing 'extremism' (whatever that is) is remotely comparable in any conceivable, arguable way to the racist, near-fascistic demagoguery of the Republican Right - in terms of viciousness, violence, or the social powers ranged behind it. -- *Richard Seymour* Writer, blogger and PhD candidate Email: leninstombb...@googlemail.com Website: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/leninology Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(writer) Book 1: http://www.versobooks.com/books/307-the-liberal-defence-of-murder Book 2: http://www.zero-books.net/obookssite/book/detail/1107/The-Meaning-of-David-Cameron ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
