At around 13/2/06 11:57 pm, Julio Huato wrote:
> ravi wrote:
>
>> Ok, thanks for the response. Of course it needs to be tempered by the
>> oft-repeated counter-argument about life for the less privileged under
>> Clinton and other Democrats (in the US and the ROTW).
>
> What counter-argument? As far as I know, employment, real income, and
> a bunch of social indices descriptive of the workers' living
> conditions weren't worse under Clinton than under the previous or
> subsequent Bush.
>
The counter-argument that Clinton signed into law welfare reform.
Attacked Yugoslavia. Bombed Afghanistan. etc. "Weren't worse compared to
the Bushes" is the bare minimum, and that's almost all we have to show
since 1980 (26 years) or even 1970s.
> The preparatory work is essential. And an election campaign with
> heavy agitational ammunition as the one in 2004 was an ideal
> opportunity for that kind of preparatory work. We were not
> constrained, in our contact with people, to present Kerry or the DP as
> the panacea. We could elaborate on the limitations and flaws of the
> DP. "Lesser evil" sounds terrible to radicals, but regular people
> find it a sensible formula. We could say it like it was -- a
> compromise with reality forced by the weakness of the left and the
> fragmentation of workers. We could sketch in our propaganda the kind
> of changes that can be accomplished with a united left and with a
> united working class. It was a chance to build up the left, more
> permanent institutions of the type Michael Perelman mentioned.
Some questions/thoughts arise based on the above: Kerry did not lose the
election due to radical leftists refusing to vote for him etc. Yoshie
(on this list) is part of the anti-ABB crowd (IIRC) but again IIRC she
was very active in voter turnout drives in Ohio (perhaps the most
important state in 2004). DP politics seems to be about stuff like
unions, a certain kind of centrism, etc. That it will ever progress to
other/larger issues is nowhere a certainty. More specifically, that
ABBers will return the favour, post election, by supporting radical
issues, is also arguable. The current non-radical ABB DP left seems to
have room within it for racism, xenophobia and a laundry list of other
violations of basic values (read Wojtek's response on LBO to my question
on the definition of "working class"). How such positions/accommodations
can be switched over seems as problematic in the gradualist approach as
in more radical or utopian versions.
> Or you tell me how to -- without compromises with the DP, with direct
> radical actions, clashing frontally with the two main parties --
> accomplish "one person, one vote" or dismantle the "winner takes all"
> lock in the electoral system or get rid of the electoral college or
> make the senate vote proportional to state population or induce any
> fundamental change in this country's political or legal system. How?
Huh? You seem to be inverting the burden here. We have supported the DP
for a long time. Has it gotten us any closer to "one person, one vote"
or getting rid of "winner take all"? In fact, since the DP is somewhat
vested in the system (including in money politics, etc) we can even say,
with some reason, that they are an obstacle to achieving these changes.
Yes, one can and should choose the lesser evil when confronted by the
likes of Bush. But what next? How, you tell me, are we to achieve,
through support of the DP, any of the things that I believe should be on
any united left agenda (universal healthcare, welfare, full rights for
women and gay/lesbian people, open immigration, etc)?
In fact the tone of this discussion, in itself, demonstrates the
polarisation within the left. I have grown up in the shadow of those who
valued what you call "ideological purity" or "empty gestures", and as
Gandhi demonstrated, these can co-exist, and often necessarily underpin,
tactical measures and acts.
--ravi
--
If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by
substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!
