I don't talk about US domestic matters much because I don't know them much.
But Nader is more than just that. He launched 'consumerism' in other
countries too, so I'm interested. I'm old enough to remember the hoo-hah
about vehicle safety in the 1960s and the susbsequent rise of consumer
groups + issues in Britain. I thought then and I think now that it is all an
utter distraction from what really matters; it is based on the crassest kind
of self-seeking, privatising solipsism which boils great social/historical
issues down to what's in it for me qua passive selfish consumer. What really
mattered then and now for eg is not car safety but less cars and more public
transport. What Nader did is help legitimise the care and ensures its social
apotheosis to its current iconic status. That's disastrously bad. That's the
essence of Nader's social constituency, what's more, and it cannot be the
basis of a national issue-driven mass politics, except by default, ie
because the real thing (a real mass socialism) is missing. But it's NOT
missing any more. Seattle q.v. Therefore Nader remains a mere distraction
and he and his ilk should indeed be revealed for what they are: a peculiarly
rotten kind of little-Napoleon petit bourgeois politicking.
Lou has hit the nail on the head again.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Hay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 5:03 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:19866] Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
> The political criticism of Nadar is valid, but the personal attack on him
is
> misguided and fundamentally irrelevant.
>
> Rod
>
> Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> > >Yes, but not that much further. My parents, who lived on my dad's
middle
> > >class income of about $25,000 a year back in those days, bought a
$100,000
> > >house in the NVA suburbs at the same time--it wasn't shabby, but it
wasn't a
> > >mansion. You probbaly could have done better in the city in those days
of
> > >white flight and before the city became fashoonable again.
> >
> > The main point is that it wasn't an $85 per month furnished room.
> >
> > >be bought. If he stayed silent on no-fault, it was not because he was
> > bribed,
> > >but because there are serious consumerist arguments against it. There
are,
> >
> > The problem with Naderism is that we have to accept the honest motives
of
> > the leader pretty much as a given. It is in the nature of nonprofits,
> > especially inside-the-beltway types like Public Citizen, to make
decisions
> > ON BEHALF of the public. It is inherently undemocratic. Even in the
> > nickle-and-dime nonprofit I was president of the board of, there were
> > constant complaints about the Executive Director making unilateral
> > decisions--like starting a program in Africa, spending money on an
> > ambitious direct mail program, etc. He once told me in private (I was
the
> > only person he ever really confided in) that he modeled the organization
on
> > the small businesses he ran in Utah, where he 'made everything go', even
> > when it took big risks. We fired him in 1990 after he went totally
> > overboard on certain financial matters. But with Nader you won't even
get a
> > board that has the gumption to challenge him. He is just too powerful
for
> > that. This, IMHO, sends the wrong kinds of signals to the left when the
> > Greens nominate a guy like him. After accepting the nomination in 1996,
he
> > made a unilateral decision to lowkey the campaign. And today he is
> > considering unilaterally whether to run as a Reform candidate, I'll
betcha.
> >
> > Louis Proyect
> > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
>
> --
> Rod Hay
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The History of Economic Thought Archive
> http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
> Batoche Books
> http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
> 52 Eby Street South
> Kitchener, Ontario
> N2G 3L1
> Canada
>
>
