me: >> Why not accept the fact that elections in the US are a game you can't >> win by voting? The most the left[*] can do at this point is >> propaganda: if a leftist candidate got 897,011 votes (6% of the total) >> the way Debs did in 1912 (while in prison), that would shake up US >> politics. Of course, it might also bring down repression, as with the >> Palmer raids (1919-1921).
Julio Huato wrote: > It's dispiriting to me to see how little we communicate. No union, no > communion, no communism. I don't get what's meant by "No union, no communion, no communism." I wasn't talking about communism or religion (i.e., communion). This three-part slogan seems an exemplary failure of communication. (And why not "no onion" while we're at it?) Who believes in this slogan? me? or Julio? > Why will anybody -- especially the left -- accept what exists as immutable? Some things that exist are immutable (perhaps such as the ultimate limit set by the scarcity of natural resources) and other things aren't. There are degrees of immutability; it's not a matter of either/or. One thing is that we know is that much of what exists (or rather, is perceived to exist) is _not_ immutable. Look, for example, how the "pro-life" movement has changed political reality in the US. In terms of what follows, it's quite possible that Julio meant to say "why _would_ anyone -- especially the left -- accept what exists as immutable?" See below. > Propaganda, like theoretical work and any other work aimed at shifting > the battleground to where we may have an edge and hold the initiative, > is "important" but "not urgent" -- to use Stephen Covey's Time > Management Matrix [tm] terminology. We definitely need to Focus [tm] > on propaganda. But propaganda, like any other strategic task, means > nothing if not grounded on the actual issues people face, the actual > fights they wage. The only meaningful definition of the left is not > its fidelity to some ideological agenda. It's its connection with the > actual struggles of working people. I didn't say anything different. Just because I used an historical reference does not mean that I'm not trying to connect with the "actual struggles of working people" or "actual issues people face, the actual fights they wage." I never said anything about ignoring actually-existing popular struggles. Who does this? I don't know where Julio got any other impression from. All I was talking about was the impact of the left on federal elections, not the importance or non-importance of propaganda or agitation. Maybe Julio's misinterpretation of what I wrote arises from not remembering what I've said on this subject before and my use of short-hand (a totally natural and totally excusable error) or from conflating my views with those of others on pen-l (less excusable). (BTW, I also don't get the point of the 'tm" business. Is it supposed to be funny? It clearly doesn't communicate to _me_ and I doubt that it communicates to working people. Quoting Covey seems to bring in nothing but capitalization, not insights. Much of management "theory" is worthless in this way.) > Federal U.S. elections are imposed on the U.S. working people, and the > U.S. left, every two years. We don't chose the battle or the > battleground. We're brought into that battleground, shackled, > kicking, and screaming. Right. It's a game in which we -- and working people -- are forced to participate. I never said anything different. The problem is that it's essentially fixed (especially at the federal level), as I've argued before. > But the stakes are very high, not only for > us, but for the rest of the world as well, which doesn't have a direct > influence on the outcomes. We know these events are important, and we > are moved to act in mass, defensively. These periodic events, when > they press on us, appear both as "urgent" and "important." How can we > Avoid [tm] them then? We can't without leaving any pretended strategy > hanging in the air. We have to Manage [tm] them with whatever > resources we have at the time. I didn't say anything about "avoiding" [tm or not tm, capitalized or non-capitalized] elections. Rather, I said that we can't win anything fundamental via elections, especially at the federal level. That does not say, for example, that we shouldn't vote against obnoxious and reactionary creeps (such as G.W. Bush) or for candidates who (almost?) no change of winning (such as Ralph Nader). Rather, what I was saying is that at this point, the main _impact_ of leftists' voting is propagandistic (e.g., as with voting for Nader). (BTW, I am not saying that voting for Nader is _good_ propaganda. That's a completely different question.) Also, as I've said before, local and state elections can be more meaningful (from a leftist perspective) than the national election. Voting against the stupid propositions that regularly show up on the CA ballot seems important, for example. However, the impact of local and state elections on the political economy (i.e., capitalism) is much less than that of federal elections. Maybe that's one reason why the federal elections are more fixed (cf. the electoral college, etc.) (As the anarchists say, if elections could (fundamentally) change things, they'd be illegal. Maybe they're not totally right, but this viewpoint deserves attention rather than immediate dismissal.) The point of working class voting is different, but I wasn't speaking to them. I was talking to pen-l, especially to Julio. Last time I checked, the working class was not represented on pen-l, except marginally. They aren't participating in an organized or collective way. When contributing to pen-l, I don't see myself as standing on a soapbox in Haymarket Square, orating at the assembled workers. Maybe Julio imagines he's talking to the working class (and telling them what to do) but I don't. > There can be no propaganda without agitation, strategy without > tactics, long term without short run. Who said anything different? It seems that you're assuming that I believe in some kind of dichotomy: _either_ propaganda _or_ agitation; _either_ strategy _or_ tactics; _either_ long term _or_ short term. I don't. I don't know why anyone would think I had this kind of dualistic/dichotomous opinion. Talk about problems with communication! > The outcome of U.S. federal elections is not predetermined. Why will > anybody -- especially the left -- want to accept what exists as > immutable? I didn't say that the election results were "predetermined" or immutable. There was a clear chance, for example, that McCain-Palin could have won. Rather, I was talking about the chance of a leftist candidate (e.g., Debs) winning the federal presidential election. To have the latter happen, the political balance of power _outside_ of the electoral arena would have to change drastically. My emphasis has _always_ been on the arena outside of elections as being most important, partly because what happens there leads to changes inside the electoral arena. In a formula, if you want social democracy in elections, you need to have a mass movement for socialism outside of the electoral arena. > You don't know if the game can be won by voting or by > turning the process upside down. You think you know, but you don't > know. I don't know either. All we know is that winning is very hard. Of course I don't Know (with a capital K). But, just like Julio, I can state my opinions. I hope that people make a bigger effort to understand them (my opinions) in the future. It's true that my prose is wooden, but please try! > But the starting point is not a person with foresight wagging the > finger at us and telling us how the game will be won. How does Julio Know that I was "wagging the finger"?? is he omniscient? Can he see what I'm doing in my office? (Horrors!)[*] I wish people wouldn't take what I say and then attribute emotions or intentions to it. Strangely, Julio can be interpreted as "wagging the finger" when he declares that "here can be no propaganda without agitation, strategy without tactics, long term without short run." But maybe not: I don't know his emotions or intentions, especially since e-mail strips away emotions. (By the way, this is one reason why I quote others at length, even though it is a boring practice: it helps prevent the attribution of inaccurate emotions or intentions to them.) What's important here is the _content_ of what said, not emotions or intentions that we want to attribute to others. > The starting > point is people taking action collectively to win the game, and then > finding their way to victory by trial and error. The key problem is that the working class has little or no collective _organization_, so it can't take action collectively, especially not in a collectively conscious way. Both the labor movement (or rather, the labor stasis) and the Democratic Party are highly flawed instruments for collective action and collective decision-making by the working class. (I won't bore people with why I think this is so.) That said, I see absolutely nothing wrong with working-class people following the process of trial and error, doing stuff like voting for DP candidates. It's their decision, not mine. It's what all of us do. (Remember, I wasn't telling the working class what to do.) At the same time, I think that leftists should point to the limitations of that kind of voting. We should do so in a friendly and humble way, avoiding hectoring slogans (like what "there can be no propaganda without agitation, strategy without tactics, long term without short run" seems to be). We should treat working people with respect, knowing that we can be wrong too (i.e., just like leftists). But we shouldn't simply assume that working people are doing the right thing (by voting for the DP, etc.) and that they (or anyone else) automatically understand what's going on. After all, the trial and error process might lead people to vote for Lou Dobbs or David Duke... It helps if people know that there's another point of view besides the worms-eye view that encourages scapegoating and the like. What I'm trying to describe is something besides a worms-eye view that is prevalent with a disorganized and dispirited working class. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. [*] What if people knew that I close my office door and run around naked? or, more seriously, that I waste tremendous amounts of time on pen-l. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
