Sandwichman wrote:
> On the one hand, lefties moan about the absence of a mass movement. <
I'm the one accused of "moaning" here, but obviously I wouldn't use
that word. All I'm saying is that a slogan that's totally detached
from -- and doesn't arise from -- an actually-existing movement is
pretty useless. It's like a leader who decides (s)he's in charge of
the movement without having previous contact, experience, or
relationships with it.
> On the other, they moan about the conservative nature of an actually existing
> mass electoral movement.<
That's not me. That's someone else.
That's a case where it's a mistake to lump different people together
in one reified category ("lefties"). (Similarly, it's wrong to lump
labor, but that's another story.)
(It's reminiscent of my conservative brother, who back in the 1970s
posited the existence of a contradiction within "the left" in terms of
the "labor movement" vs. "the counterculture." In no sense were these
two movements part of some larger totality.)
> To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld paraphrasing Marx, you fight the revolution
> with the mass movement you have, not the one wish you had.<
Right, though the kind of revolution you get depends crucially on the
kind of movement you have. Rumsy had a light, fast, surgical-strike
kind of army (which he had helped create, but that's another question)
so he got an army that couldn't even impose law and order on Iraq.
What is the "mass movement" behind Obama? to what extent is a true
mass movement (with independent organization, a common program, etc.)
and to what extent is it just a bunch of individuals who have
temporarily latched on to a man on a white horse who will be the
"savior"? which kind of "movement"
> The what-is-to-be-done question of the day isn't about the deficiencies of
> the Obama programme. That's a no-brainer.<
Some people (even some on the left) seem to fall for the hype, so it's
good to criticize it. (BTW, I don't see any point at all in making it
personal; in fact, that's usually counterproductive.)
> The question should be about what's going on beneath the surface and how the
> phenomenal embrace of vague "change" can be channeled into struggle for
> fundamental real change.<
okay, what are the underlying contradictions of this current phase of
capitalism and to how are the apparent mass movements responding to
them? are they trying to produce a more democratic & collective
system, or are they trying to re-establish some imaginary golden age?
or is it something else?
--
Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange
days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
