==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
Louis wrote:
It is to put Democrats on the defensive, which they have done with
ease. Two days ago we were discussing Bob Herbert's dismantling of
Obreagan. Now we are focused on the nefarious Tea Party. We need to
refocus our discussion on the biggest threat to the American working
class--Barack Obama, the clear choice of big capital, not the Tea Party
side show.
I agree... and it goes somewhat against the ISO/Trotskyist current of which
I identify. I, like Louis, have been a little disturbed by the obsession on
the left over this whole affair. My position is as follows: even though it
is true that we must counter bigotry and injustice where ever we find it,
sometimes, the best defense is a good offense. Moving away from a constant
defensive posture does not preclude defensive action--it only implies that
focusing on an offensive posture is the best way to incorporate an effective
defensive strategy. I am, of course, speaking at an extreme level of
abstraction, but it is rather Marxian to find the adequate level of
abstraction to tackle important issues, is it not?
Some might argue that such an offensive strategy is just not feasible for
a leftist movement that appears so marginalized, if not crippled. But at
what point does this view of ourselves as marginalized and crippled become a
self-fulfilling prophecy?
-Adam
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
