Hari is correct to reference the KDP; however, I'd articulate my point differently because the typical application of this analogy leaves out what was fundamentally wrong with Nach Hitler, unsere Reihe.
I don't think the error was an incorrect prediction regarding the competency of the Nazis. There were many who underestimated the capabilities of the Nazis and still fought. The error was a form of social fascism: a theoretical model of process development in which a united front becomes unnecessary due to the historical process unfolding. Once the outcome is predetermined based on another's inability, current organizational efforts become optional. This is the translatable mistake, and it is the one that condemns Bradley's formulation. While I have little disagreement with Bradley's assessment that the current team is incapable of performing their duties (there is certainly considerable evidence), the concern is what is expected of this judgment. If the enemy's ineptitude is the means by which we save ourselves, we've subcontracted our future and given ourselves nothing to do in the interim. Therefore, Michael's response isn't the corrective to Bradley; it's Bradley's converse. Bradley relies on an error committed by the enemy. Michael relies on the portion of the anti-fascist branch of the ruling class that includes state government, lower courts, and eventually a Supreme Court that again demonstrates prudence. Both models are theories in which the primary agent responsible for decision-making is some entity besides us. In terms of this analysis, it is perhaps most evident in relation to the 1937 analogy. The shift in timing did not derive from a display of self-control by institutions. Rather, the change occurred within a specific relationship of force: the strike wave; Flint, an executive with an extraordinary amount of authority; and a court-packing threat, which became credible once the executive had enough power to make good on such a threat. Take away the underlying assumptions, and you're left with nothing. In place of that is simply optimism regarding how prudent judges will act; optimism is not a plan but a disposition. Perhaps even more problematic than "the anti-fascist branch of the ruling class"—which is stated rather than proven—is asking what actions this branch has taken. Companies caved. Schools surrendered. Business owners folded. This isn't a lack of courage to criticize. A system predicated upon patronage does not face a unitary capital. Instead, it provides each capitalist individual or group with access, exemptions, and rents personally, and through this process it disciplines various sectors of capitalism via fear of exclusion rather than inducing these capitalists into action around an abstract desire for legality. The class actor Michael is depending upon is precisely the type of actor this style of governance negates. Michael's final paragraph admits to having conceded the point against him. As long as the worst-case scenario Michael can envision is a speaker agreeing to collaborate with the administration, then the relevant question is what could possibly motivate a Democratic majority to stand up against something, and that answer cannot be found in election outcomes. In his last paragraph he has accurately defined the problem and then proposed as a solution for that problem exactly that which he previously described as insufficient. Regarding the original argument. The case against those who rely solely on electoral results doesn't demand foretelling that elections will be canceled. That way of framing loses sight of when they are indeed held. Furthermore, it gives our adversaries a very simple justification. The argument is much weaker than that. An electoral strategy measured solely by the calendar of elections lacks any provision for partial collapse: mass resistance movements, federally administered systems, disputed certification processes, or a winning candidate lacking any legitimacy-giving majorities. Electoral strategies do not need to have elections canceled in order to become irrelevant. They need only be compromised. That the question isn't even being asked is sufficient evidence. Tony -- Tony -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43133): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43133 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120623848/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
