ravi, By any account, Bush has been much more reactionary and dangerous to the working people of the world than Clinton. Again, that's all that was required in 2004 to justify helping the DP to dump Bush. A "welfare reform" in the middle of a long period of growth with high employment doesn't bite the working poor as much as starving social programs in the middle of a recession or jobless recovery. Clinton's attack on Yugoslavia or blockade and sporadic bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan were not nearly as bad as the full-fledged invasion and occupation of those two countries under Bush. Think Fallujah. And think of the likelihood of the massive bombing of Iran, with the potential to lead to a nasty nuclear collision. It is indeed a matter of comparing evils in terms of cost and dangers to working people, here and abroad.
> Kerry did not lose the election due to radical leftists refusing to vote for > him etc. I have not said that. We don't know whether a concerted effort of the left could have helped defeat Bush. But, my main argument is not that we need to cooperate with the DP because without us the DP cannot win. Obviously, cooperating with the DP is good for the DP to some extent. But my main argument is even more outrageous: I claim that, provided the left does other things, cooperating with the DP benefits the left more than it benefits the DP -- it benefits the left regardless of whether it benefits the DP. My Swans' article elaborates on this: http://www.swans.com/library/art11/jhuato01.html > 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). Although I went to OH to get the vote out, I don't know the details of the work done by the IIRC. So I shouldn't comment on it. However, I don't say that anti-ABB people are bad or ill-intentioned. My argument, with all due respect, is that the anti-ABBers were wrong on the issue. The fact that I post my rants on these lists shows that I consider them my comrades. I just call it like it is, from my POV. > 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. Let me insist on this: The issue is not the character of the DP. The DP is a bourgeois party. It is largely dominated by special interests alien to the working people. It is corrupt. As is, it will not be the political vehicle of progressive forces in the U.S. But the left has no direct control over the social nature and the policies effectively pursued by the DP. Therefore, the left bears no direct responsibility for the choices the DP makes. Still, there are reasons why the left needs to cooperate with with the DP. And that's what I argue in my article in Swans. > More specifically, that > ABBers will return the favour, post election, by supporting radical > issues, is also arguable. There's no guarantee that, helped by the left, the DP will implement progressive policies once in power. Or, more precisely, the only (limited) guarantee is the power the left may have to exert pressure over them. And that power doesn't arise from the DP returning favors. It arises from the number of people organized in the left, the quality of those people and their organization, the clarity of their vision, and their ability to execute it. > 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. Again, the DP is what it is. The left has no direct control over the actions of the Democrats. However, the left can grow. How? By intervening decisively in issues that are most likely to drive large masses of working people into political action and, in that context, working hard and smart on the unity and organization of those people for the long run. And if the left grows, then it transforms itself into a factor to be reckoned with. A likely byproduct will be the DP adjusting or being left behind. The reason why the whole political center of gravity of this society veers to the right is the disunity and organizational weakness of the working people. But we can work to reverse that. That's directly within our reach. It's a false dichotomy to counterpose a "gradualist approach" to a "more radical or utopian" approach. If the radical approach shuns gradual steps and waits for radical changes to happen by chance, then it is not serious -- it doesn't go to the root, and therefore it is not truly radical. It's only superficially radical. In 2004, a gradual step was cooperation with the DP to stop Bush. > 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. My point, again, is not that the DP will do things for us if we just support them. That relies on the DP being a good party, internally motivated to pursue progressive policies. There's no reason why we should have such belief or expectation given their record. But we have to understand that the DP's lack of responsiveness to progressive issues is the result of the weakness of the progressive forces. If the progressive forces get their act together either the DP will change or be bypassed. If the progressive forces grow organically, they'll find, reform, or forge from scratch the adequate political vehicle to advance their interest. Cooperating with the DP is not a sufficient condition for the left to advance. But it is absolutely necessary in our times. Not cooperating in general, but around specific, well-defined issues: Iraq, national health care, etc. For more on the conditions for cooperating with the DP, see my Swans' article. > 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)? My Swans' article answers these questions. > In fact the tone of this discussion, in itself, demonstrates the > polarisation within the left. I don't think we should seek or enforce uniformity in our views. Diversity of perspectives in the left is a strength. But we need to discuss and debate frankly and loyally. And we need to seek unity in action. IMO, the tone of this discussion reflects personal dynamics and the quirks of our personalities. Perhaps one of the disadvantages of these lists is that the continuous exchanges tend to sharpen our differences and de-emphasize our commonalities. Our egos get in the way, but we have to keep things in perspective. We're much closer politically than we think we are. Julio
