Gene, > I would recommend this video for a workshop, for example at the URPE summer > camp, rather than something by, say Krugman or Stiglitz, as a way to begin a > conversation.
Nice idea. I'll suggest it to people dealing with the "macro" topics. > A major problem with any existing national party is the screening and > selection > process that ensures candidates rising to top ranks will never do anything > that > threatens the rest. Radicals can get elected mayor, for example, but no > higher, for the party can't tolerate the risk. The two parties IMO are > impervious to reform. I tend to distrust categorical statements about what can or cannot be accomplished this or that way. I know we sometimes use these figures of speech for emphasis, but I don't like the fatalism implied. *Any* social formation (e.g. an organization, an entire society) is susceptible to change, at almost any stage of its historical shelf life. Yes, structure constrains agency. But agency alters structure, no matter how hardened. We've witnessed this frequently. Some social formations are harder to reform or refit than others. But... you got the idea. I think that radicals have to try every which way available to them, see what sticks, and adjust aim as necessary. History, theory, digested collective experience, and all that may help to anticipate outcomes, without ever being panacea. There are radicals, progressives, etc. who continue to work on the structures of the DP, and their work deserves support. I can say their efforts face adverse odds, but I'm not convinced their efforts are all sterile. Who the hell knows for sure? Look at Greece, the Communists didn't seem to think that they could affect Syriza, move it to what they regarded as their "left." So they ran their own candidate and you have to wonder whether that worsened matters. Or not. There are people who are now rationalizing the outcome by saying, Hey, Syriza is actually better off not having won. >From my ignorance of the Greek situation, I tend to disagree with that logic. But I don't know whether they will turn out to be correct in their anticipation of things. Similarly, I am not convinced that sabotaging Obama is the best approach. There are radicals who know. I don't. My concern is the unity of working people, which begins with the unity of the left (as Sam Gindin, I believe, recently implied). But I see actually-existing left in places most people in PEN-L don't see it, like in the DP, the churches, the U.S. government, the mainstream media, etc. I am actually quite sure there is a lot of scattered left in all those places and more. > BTW, I didn't mean to denigrate Occupy in an earlier post. What I was > thinking, regardless of how I put it, is that Occupy, with its interest > groups, > becomes a target for accusations that it is just people looking for a handout. > In Oakland, perhaps in contrast with NY or elsewhere, there isn't much > analysis, economic or otherwise, being put forward. Right. We need to participate. To that extent, our initiatives will get respect, and may make the difference. Thanks for the comments on Mangabeira Unger. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
