Rather than rail at non-Marxists and especially “fake Marxists”, I would be more interested in seeing some serious analysis as to why, over these many generations, people like Michael and Carrol (and indeed myself and others) who have engaged with workers in their unions and political parties and have on more than one occasion openly and sharply criticized their leaders and policies, have had only fleeting success. At the high tide of such engagement, why didn’t Debs’ Socialists or the Communists in the 30’s supplant the Democrats as the mass party favoured by the trade unions and social movements? Or for the “anti-Stalinists”among us and on a smaller scale, why didn’t the Trotskyists, with their ostensibly superior program, supplant the Communists on the left of the labour movement?
In other words, if we’re so smart, why aren’t we rich? We’ve always been present and vocal at meetings and demonstrations. Despite state surveillance and bureaucratic manipulation within the mass organizations, we’ve always had far more opportunity to function openly and to present our case than did the underground movements which succeeded in overthrowing capitalism. So why haven’t the workers in the advanced capitalist countries listened to us? Why have they ignored calls to break with the Jesse Jacksons and Bernie Sanders or, worse yet, with their neoliberal leaders in the DP and social democratic parties? At the most basic level, I would like to know why Carrol and Jan, who were active in the LRS which strongly influenced the Jackson campaign, were unable despite their best efforts to disabuse a single LRS member - not one member! - of their “illusionary” and “idiotic” hopes of pushing the DP to the left? And, in light of this, why continue to insistently sell an evidently failed strategy then as a winning one today? The problem is not simply or mainly that of incorrect ideas, tactics, propaganda, etc., though you would hardly know that from the furious polemics between the multiple competing political tendencies on the contemporary left. > On Mar 1, 2016, at 8:51 AM, raghu <mragh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Carrol Cox <cb...@ilstu.edu > <mailto:cb...@ilstu.edu>> wrote: > In very concrete terms Sanders is a serious obstacle to any attempts to build > mass movements of opposition to the current policies of Austerity & > Imperialism. He is doing much more damage to leftist politics than Trump in > the white house could do. > > > Repeating fallacious arguments over and over again does not make them any > better. > > I notice that you did not have the courtesy to answer any of the very > specific responses I had to Michael's blog. > > And if you say "Sanders" and "mass movement" in the same sentence again, I am > going to SCREAM! > -raghu. > > > > > In 1988 I was on Jackson's delegate slate in this congressional district; Jan > & I were members of LRS, and that was why Jackson's last speech of the > primary campaign was delivered here in Bloomington/Normal Illionois: LRS > controleed Jackson's speaking schedule. Jackson was far to the left of > Sanders (at least verbally), but LRS did not gain a single member from that > campaign; in fct, to this day I believe the illusion (or delusory) hopes > generated by that campaign, along with the exhaustion created by electoral > activity, was the primary cause of the collapse of LRS a year or so later. > For 80 years the idiotic hope of pushing the DP left has been the death of > all mass political action, beginning with the CPUSA and the CIO. > > Carrol > > -----Original Message----- > From: pen-l-boun...@lists.csuchico.edu > <mailto:pen-l-boun...@lists.csuchico.edu> > [mailto:pen-l-boun...@lists.csuchico.edu > <mailto:pen-l-boun...@lists.csuchico.edu>] On Behalf Of raghu > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 3:25 PM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] New Blog Post: Bernie Sanders' "Political Revolution" > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Michael Yates <mikedjya...@msn.com > <mailto:mikedjya...@msn.com>> wrote: > > > Some say that those of us who don't actively support the > Sanders' campaign are "ultra-leftists." I disagree. And for > the record, I am not and have never been a Trotskyist! Though > I have friends who are and were. > > cheapmotelsandahotplate.org/2016/02/29/bernie-sanders-political-revolution/ > <http://cheapmotelsandahotplate.org/2016/02/29/bernie-sanders-political-revolution/> > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > I usually much enjoy and agree with your blogs, but this time, I am afraid, I > find you arguing with strawmen far too much. > > > > > Is the Sanders’ phenomenon a radical movement? If not, will it soon > give rise to one? There are reasons to be skeptical. > > > > Fair enough, but you are setting the bar ridiculously high here. If any > political activity must constitute a radical movement in order for it to be > worthwhile at all, this is an argument for paralysis basically. > > > I think you need to argue against a more reasonable bar: is the Sanders > campaign meaningfully advancing the prospects for a radical movement? The > answer to that surely has to be Yes. > > > > > > Second, all campaigns are now driven by television and social media, > both of which devote little time to the serious analysis that might educate > us. They feed the public sound bites, over and over, ad nauseam. > > > This is way too cynical. What you say above is true of cable and network TV, > but social media?? And I am not even sure about the relevance to the Sanders > campaign. > > > > > > However, might it not be just as reasonable to argue that dedicated > activists within the working class, through years of hard and tireless > efforts had already built militant, albeit not radical organizations, and it > has been these that have energized the Sanders’ campaign and not the other > way around? > > > > Does it matter which is cause, and which effect? And does it have to be > either/or? Surely the more reasonable guess would be that there is a little > bit of both? > > > > > > won’t the new recruits be spending their time for the foreseeable > future trying to win converts to the election cause? When exactly will the > movement building begin? > > > > Don't you think you have a very narrow conception of what constitutes > "movement building"? Also, aren't you begging the question here by making > assertions without evidence about everyone "spending their time for the > foreseeable future" on the "election cause" which is taken to be > intrinsically inimical to this thing called "movement building"? > > > > > > Why is anything different this time around? Yes, Sanders is a better > choice for president than Hillary Clinton. > > > > Didn't you just answer your own question there? > > > > > But he is running as a Democrat, as part of a party that is rotten > from top to bottom. > > > > True, but why is this an indictment of Sanders? > > The DP happens to the gateway to the left 50% of the US public. The > gatekeepers are corrupt, but they are not omnipotent. Indeed one of the great > services that the Sanders campaign has performed is to bring a spotlight to > just how corrupt the DP elites are. > > > > > > If Sanders and those who support him were serious about building a > radical movement, they would use his campaign to engage in a parallel crusade > of critical education. [...] If Sanders and his “Sandernistas” wanted a > “political revolution,” they would use his campaign to begin the long, > arduous process of radical education. There would be teach-ins and public > meetings in towns large and small. No political event, no protest, no rally > would be fail to have an educational component. Sanders’ talking points could > be used to deepen understanding, by asking questions and pushing the > discussions toward fundamental causes. And connections between inequality and > a host of other problems, including the environmental catastrophes that are > raining down upon us and threaten the viability of human life itself, could > be made. > > > Funny you should say that, because that's exactly what Sanders and many of > his supporters claim to be doing. Maybe your real complaint is that they are > not doing it very well. Fair enough, but that's very different from saying > that the Sanders campaign should be ignored or opposed. > > > -raghu. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu <mailto:pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > <https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l> > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
