Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/23/04 4:19 PM Michael Hoover wrote: responses to my initial post conveyed, by and large, varying degrees of maximalism, making quantitative leap from my modest suggestion all the way to presidential electoral politics (by such measures *all attempts will fail), pervasive problem imo... The questions of what we can do to improve local governance and what we can do to change national politics shouldn't be put in terms of minimalist vs. maximalist programs, I believe, because it is not the case that you can make even minimal changes in foreign policy by taking the city halls. Even if the Green Party were to succeed in electing Green mayors in all cities in the United States, for instance, an impact of such a dramatic change in local politics on US foreign policy won't be even minimalist -- it will be practically zero. The thing is that it is possible for us to make a lot more changes for better at the local level either by building the Green Party, or taking over local Democratic parties, or pursuing some other measures (we have viable tactics and successful models of various sorts here, lacking only in enough activists willing to put in time and energy), and we should be doing what we can, but taking on national politics is qualitatively (rather than quantitatively) different from working on local politics, and here we can use some innovative ideas. Yoshie have been away from computers for several days and this thread has gone bye bye, in any event, comment above re. greens electing green mayors in all u.s. cities is itself maximalist, such thing would never happen and one could make persuasive case that it wouldn't be good idea anyway, but were this to miraculously occur, national and international u.s. politics would be qualitatively different as one would not happen without other... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/23/04 6:14 PM The reason I don't push for working through local Democratic parties is that the Green Party has already shown that it can elect its own candidates for local offices, so why bother trying the second best now? But, all the arguments in favor of concentrating on local politics that are advanced now here and elsewhere, I think, come with a subtext: you, leftists, had better work on only local issues like zoning -- leave big national and international issues like war and peace to the Democratic Party, because you can't win presidency immediately anyway. To the contrary, war years are especially important years when leftists need to make interventions in national politics, including mounting electoral challenges through presidential elections. The question is how exactly to do that effectively, knowing that our candidate won't become the next POTUS. Yoshie i've not suggested working through local dem branches as such nor working only on local issues... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
At 9:19 PM -0400 7/27/04, Michael Hoover wrote: i've not suggested working through local dem branches as such nor working only on local issues... michael hoover What you originally suggested is the following: At 3:27 PM -0400 7/19/04, Michael Hoover wrote: maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, use available funds to issue policy statements and press releases one after another, show up at public and government meetings, control of county dem mechanisms might lead to control of state dem parties... Presumably, leftists who follow your suggestion will be working on local issues first of all till they succeed in wresting the control of the Democratic Party at the state level. At 9:10 PM -0400 7/27/04, Michael Hoover wrote: greens electing green mayors in all u.s. cities is itself maximalist That's more of a figure of speech than anything else, but conversations here indicate that we sure do live in the age of diminishing expectations, which in itself gives people fewer reasons to spend time on political activism. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/27/04 11:17 PM Presumably, leftists who follow your suggestion will be working on local issues first of all till they succeed in wresting the control of the Democratic Party at the state level. At 9:10 PM -0400 7/27/04, Michael Hoover wrote: greens electing green mayors in all u.s. cities is itself maximalist That's more of a figure of speech than anything else, but conversations here indicate that we sure do live in the age of diminishing expectations, which in itself gives people fewer reasons to spend time on political activism. -- Yoshie re. localism and diminishing expectatons, nothing i've posted here points to either, no one's going to pursue it anyway... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Justin wrote: [clip] So, we're fucked, right, Carrol? Not completely so anyhow when I can have that much fun writing a post off the top of my head. :-) A whole series of 19th c. poems (beginning with Keats's Nightingale Ode) may be crudely paraphrased thusly: The world is all fucked up. But look, that I (the poet) can dramatize what a fucked up world looks like means that I have created in my imagination what an unfucked up world would look like. And a world that contains that triumph of the imagination is not wholly fucked up. ** Yeats didn't think that was good enough: Once out of Nature I shall never take / My bodily form from any natural thing [i.e., not from Keats's bird] / But such a form as grecian goldsmiths make [i.e., dead, frozen, out of time]. . . .to sing / Of what is past, or passing, or to come. But Pound came close to returning to Keats at the end of his life: I have brought the great ball of crystal; who can lift it? Can you enter the great acorn of light? But the beauty is not in the madness Tho' my errors and wrecks lie about me. And I am not a demigod, I cannot make it cohere. . . . . . . . . . . to see again,* the verb is see, not walk on i.e. it coheres all right even if my notes do not cohere. (Canto CXVI) (*The roads of France, wish expressed in an earlier Canto.) But Pound's Make It New was Platonic: the same forms endlessly recur, and must on each occurrence be made new. History is not Platonic; it has surprises for us. Perhaps that is what at one time some marxists I believe called attentisme. Carrol
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Carrol wrote: I think Yoshie has gotten a bit too wrapped up in the Greens (in the 2004 election). We cannot know the form that socialist activity will take in the future, but we can be fairly certain that it will not be electoral and will involve mass resistance to imperialist policies. Arguments against the Greens are equally arguments against paying any attention at all to elections at any level. The future of mass resistance to imperialist policies that you speak of, for all I know, may come, say, four years from now; it may not come in our lifetime, however. Whichever is the case, we have to do what we can in the meantime, and among the things to do in the United States is to challenge the Democratic Party, because it, unlike the Republican Party, commands the allegiance of a politically active layer (10-20%) of the American working class and thus is a more effective instrument of capitalist hegemony at home and US hegemony in the world than the Republican Party. The reason why Democratic Party operatives are *hopping mad* at Ralph Nader is that his campaign actually challenged the Democratic Party, becoming a factor in its electoral defeat in the election for the highest political office in the USA in 2000, it may do so again in 2004, and its supporters and sympathizers (choosing a more potent standard-bearer in the future) may do even better in the near future, eventually eroding the confidence of the aforementioned politically active layer (10-20%) of the American working class in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party operatives, in contrast, are not mad at anarchists, Marxist-Leninist sects, the Socialist Party, independent socialists, etc. at all, even though they, in theory, espouse more radical transformations of American society as their respective goals than Nader does. Why? Because they pose no practical threat whatsoever to the Democratic Party's absorption of organizers, activists, and voters on the left side of the political spectrum. There is another factor in all the discussions of the elections -- the failure of so many to see that social democracy is as dead as stalinism. Both were equally discredited by the events of the twentieth century. Both old-style socialism and social democracy are objectively things of the past, in that reforms that parties of either type propose today are, on the whole, reforms that bring down the living standards of the working class (whereas they could and did implement reforms that actually improved the living standards of the working class before the mid-1970s), but they are still subjectively alive, in that masses of people *consent* to live with the shadows of the old selves of such socialist and social democratic political parties. The subjective is as important as the objective, and as far as mass political actions are concerned, it is probably more important than the objective. At 11:05 PM -0400 7/23/04, Marvin Gandall wrote: Don't you think it will be necessary for the Greens to win a number of congressional seats before they can be seen as a potential alternative to the Democrats by the unions and social movements, and a durable third party in the country as a whole? For many people, that will be the case, but somebody has to be the first person to get things started, for otherwise nothing will ever get done. Unions as organized entities (as opposed to factions of activists in them) will be *the last* to join any third-party movement on the left that has an actual potential to grow powerful (that is, if they will ever join any such thing en masse at all -- very improbable), for most union leaders have so many things to lose and a precious few things to gain from such a movement's challenge to the Democratic Party. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
CC writes: it would be more interesting and more relevant to the future to explore the forms of commodity fetishism int he 21st century. maybe, given the way that the presidential and other electoral contests have turned into duopolistic or monopolistic marketing events, this is quite relevant. jd
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Yoshie wrote: Unions as organized entities (as opposed to factions of activists in them) will be *the last* to join any third-party movement on the left that has an actual potential to grow powerful (that is, if they will ever join any such thing en masse at all -- very improbable), for most union leaders have so many things to lose and a precious few things to gain from such a movement's challenge to the Democratic Party. - I think mass disastifaction with the Democrats and interest in the Greens or another third party, if it were to occur, would be a more uneven and unpredictable process than you suggest. Political divisions would concurrently appear in all organizations, and it is impossible to predict which sectors would move faster than others, or that the unions are fated to be last. The political differences at the activist level which you identity would also be reflected at the top, as was the case when Marxists were battling social democrats for leadership of the industrial unions in the 30's and 40' s, and you and your colleagues would, I'm sure, be concentrated on wooing Green-minded local and national union leaders. Your frustration with the unions is characteristic of the US left, and is a product of the AFL-CIO's conservative cast and political immobility relative to the history of other labour organizations around the world. However, I think you'd agree that this in turn is related to the relative stability of US capitalism, and that if that changed, so too would the American labour movement from bottom to top. Finally, it seems Carrol has gone anarchist on us: I think Yoshie has gotten a bit too wrapped up in the Greens (in the 2004 election). We cannot know the form that socialist activity will take in the future, but we can be fairly certain that it will not be electoral and will involve mass resistance to imperialist policies. Arguments against the Greens are equally arguments against paying any attention at all to elections at any level. Marv Gandall
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Devine, James wrote: CC writes: it would be more interesting and more relevant to the future to explore the forms of commodity fetishism int he 21st century. maybe, given the way that the presidential and other electoral contests have turned into duopolistic or monopolistic marketing events, this is quite relevant. The posts I wrote yesterday were in part just celebrations of being out of the hospital after three very unpleasant days, but also I have been mulling over for several weeks what I think may be the wrong handle people bring to discussing the topics raised in vols. 2 3 of Capital. The approach is always in economic terms (in ref., e.g., to productive/unproductive labor) rather in terms of a critique of political economy. Marx is partly responsible for this himself, with all the arithmetical rambling in those two volumes and in the Theories of Surplus value. But those are all unfinished mss., and in Vol. 1 of Capital the arithmetic clearly constitutes poetic images rather than economic analysis. Not an economics text; not a criticism or analysis of economics; not a political-economy text; not a criticism of particular theories of political economy, but a CRITIQUE (and overthrow from within) of Political Economy, hence necessarily (even in the supposedly more specific vol. 3) a gaining, from within, of a perspective from OUTSIDE political economy, where the numbers become illustrations not arguments, and illustrations of social relations; hence the focus must be on the relations, not on the empirical accuracy or inaccuracy of the illustrations. We live in a historical period when an immense amount of our human activity consists in distributing paper claims to surplus. I buy hearing-aid batteries at Walgreens. (I'm making the example false enough so there will be no temptation to translate into real dollars cents.) Supply of the size I need has been exhausted in the display case, so the clerk brings new supply from the store room. Obviously (in vulgar materialist terms, such as would fit even a hunter-gatherer culture) she has made the hearing aids of worth to me (since I can't wear them if they are stacked up in the storeroom any more than I can eat fish that are still in the ocean or cut my potato with iron ore that is still in the ground. But then the clerk spends a number of minutes explaining to me that if I were to take out a Walgreens credit card instead of charging on my mastercard I would get 10% off on the batteries. Clearly this human activity is profoundly different from the human activity of physically bringing to me the batteries I need. Different _as human activity_ whether it shows up in the national accounts or not. So even if the distinction makes no economic sense at all, nevertheless Marx's distinction between productive and unproductive labor is a profound truth of history, of human culture. Now I leaped a few stages there, and left productive and unproductive undefined. Those steps ought to be filled in -- BUT NOT BY TRYING TO MAKE _ECONOMIC_ SENSE. As soon as you try to prove or disprove this as a statement about technical economics you will lose completely the profound historical (cultural) importance of the distinction. Or to put it another way, to reject Marx's distinction between productive and unproducive labor (by placing on it the burden of practical economics or political economy) you will completely lose the main point of Marx's whole life's labor, that capitalism is a _historical_ phenomenon. That it is _different_. And it is different (among other reasons) because of the difference between the two types of human activity which our Walgreens' clerk has exhibited for us. That distinction could not have arisen except in a capitalist economy. And it probably can't be translated into empirically confirmable/disconfirmable statements about the actual economy -- but one cannot let that interfere with developing one's historical and cultural understanding of the distinctions in living human activity involved. Carrol jd
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Marvin Gandall wrote: Finally, it seems Carrol has gone anarchist on us: :-) Anarchism is so completely dead that one really need not try particularly hard to distinguish oneself from it. In 1875 after the defeat of the Paris Commune it would not have been possible to predict the political forms of the revolutions in Russia and China, nor would it have been possible to predict (I think) the treason of the leadership in 1914. And the new forms did not drop from the sky or come from revolutionary theorists sitting around and (Gary Hart fashion) dreaming up new ideas. Probably new ideas emerge from within old practices, but only if the old practices are pushed hard, as Yoshie is doing and urging others to do. When I say she is a bit too much wrapped up in the Greens, I refer primarily to further theorizing of and polemics for her position on the lbo and pen-l maillists; Ohio is one of the states where left activity might seriously hurt the DP, so clearly in her local situation it is impossible to be too wrapped up in the Green campaign. For 75 years or so the DP has successfully muffled most forms of mass struggle most of the time. The CPUSA seemed anxious to meet that fate, becoming a mere appendage at times to the DP. (During the Truman Era -- miscalled McCarthy Era -- DP politicians and their lackeys in the labor movement exercised direct repression. Humphrey destroyed the left forces in the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party. Under Reuther Meany the CIO, AFL, AFL-CIO never even really pressured the DP to push for the repeal of Taft-Hartley.) The McGovern campaign absorbed the energies of the anti-war movement and the militancy of the women's movement was absorbed into the polite lobbying through which ERA ratification was sought. Had Roosevelt had his way with Governor Murphy of Michigan the sit-down strikes might well have been militarily crushed. There will never be a good time for leftists to break away from subordination to this enemy; 2004 is perhaps a better time than most. Particularly telling is that the closer we get to the election the more most ABBs, instead of emphasizing that this election is (allegedly) _different_, increasingly spout the same rhetoric that we have been hearing for 30 years, and which will _always_ apply: NLRB; judicial appointments, abortion, etc. This is not ABB; it is Remain with the DP forever. Any argument in 2004 that would have been at all relevant in 2000 is an implicit admission (regardless of how much verbal criticism of the DP accompanies it) that this election is not special but just one more occasion on which to remain tied to the tail of the DP. But these arguments merely heave tofro on these lists, which brings me back to my suggestion to Yoshie: I agree with her arguments but believe that the topic has been exhausted as far as pen-l and lbo are concerned. They may well become relevant again _after the election_ but for now, as I suggested, forms of commodity fetishism, among other topics, might be more fruitful at the present time. Concern with November 2004 here on pen-l and lbo is more like scratching an itch than discussing topics of concern. Carrol I think Yoshie has gotten a bit too wrapped up in the Greens (in the 2004 election). We cannot know the form that socialist activity will take in the future, but we can be fairly certain that it will not be electoral and will involve mass resistance to imperialist policies. Arguments against the Greens are equally arguments against paying any attention at all to elections at any level. Marv Gandall
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
In a message dated 7/24/2004 1:04:02 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Or to put it another way, to reject Marx's distinction between productive and unproductive labor (by placing on it the burden of practical economics or political economy) you will completely lose the main point of Marx's whole life's labor, that capitalism is a _historical_ phenomenon. That it is _different_. And it is different (among other reasons) because of the difference between the two types of human activity which our Walgreens' clerk has exhibited for us. That distinction could not have arisen except in a capitalist economy. And it probably can't be translated into empirically confirmable/disconfirmable statements about the "actual" economy -- but one cannot let that interfere with developing one's historical and cultural understanding of the distinctions in living human activity involved. Carrol Comment Poetic. I understand my historical connection. You are correct on the entire spans of the polemics concerning electoral politics and Marx Capital Volume 1 . . . in my opinion. Profound piece. Nothing anarchist about it. Very working class . . . very proletarian . . . very communist. Melvin P.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
At 4:31 PM -0400 7/21/04, Michael Pollak wrote: self-selected candidates often don't care whether they get local party support or not (and sometimes prefer not), surely progressive/left folks can do better than this with whatever shell of an organization exists... I think there is now a much more effective model available for affecting the nomination than taking over the party: the MoveOn model. MoveOn almost nominated Dean. I don't think that it was worth leftists' time to fight to have Howard Dean nominated, as Dean's agenda in some crucial respects (especially on Iraq) went against leftists', but, supposing that there were left-of-center liberal folks who really, really, wanted to nominate him as the Democratic presidential candidate, it's now clear that it takes much more than internet communication to win in the caucuses and primaries. Besides, the MoveOn model is strictly one-way communication from the center to the margins (unlike the Dean model), far more centralized and undemocratic than any other organization on the left side of the political spectrum. At 4:10 PM -0400 7/22/04, Michael Hoover wrote: partial example of what i've been trying to get at: harold washington's brief time as chicago mayor in the mid-1980s remains important because what emerged was a potentially powerful dialectical relationship between politicians and movement, politicos in downtown 'suites' were emboldened by activsts in neighorhood 'streets', political mobilization and organization operated 'outside of government' yet were linked 'organically'' to it worked to embolden policymakers. Results were, admittedly, limited (but achieved in face of white-dominated city council and under scrutiny of white local media), but included some shifting power and resources to neighborhoods (including creating neighborhood coops), fostering further mobilization of previously inactive folks (neighborhood orgs could review all city economic development programs and submit economic assistance proposals), and attempting some redistribution towards lower-income individuals/groups (considere no-no for municipal gov't because spending on the poor requires higher local taxes that are unattractive to potential investors), things imploded in aftermath of washington's (not necessarily my idea of appealing politician but that's not point) untimely death... And there is a reason why reforms and mobilizations did not last beyond Washington's death. At 4:10 PM -0400 7/22/04, Michael Hoover wrote: was underwhelmed by list of elected green party members, most had no links to them, number of links to some who did were apparently broken, and most sites i was able to access made no mention that folks were green party members, most offices held are probably nonpartisan with respect to ballot but i'd have thought these people would want to highlight/promote green party and their membership in it at their websites, no indication of concerted party efforts but rather individual candidates running conventional campaigns that have little real connection to one another (nothing wrong with this but not indication of party growth/strength)... The US-style electoral system strongly acts against party-building, but it's better to have a political party like the Green Party than a Washington-style campaign, which is doomed to remain in one location and destined to die with the person with whom mobilization is inseparably associated. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/23/04 3:29 AM I don't think that it was worth leftists' time to fight to have Howard Dean nominated, as Dean's agenda in some crucial respects (especially on Iraq) went against leftists', but, supposing that there were left-of-center liberal folks who really, really, wanted to nominate him as the Democratic presidential candidate, it's now clear that it takes much more than internet communication to win in the caucuses and primaries. Besides, the MoveOn model is strictly one-way communication from the center to the margins (unlike the Dean model), far more centralized and undemocratic than any other organization on the left side of the political spectrum. And there is a reason why reforms and mobilizations did not last beyond Washington's death. The US-style electoral system strongly acts against party-building, but it's better to have a political party like the Green Party than a Washington-style campaign, which is doomed to remain in one location and destined to die with the person with whom mobilization is inseparably associated. -- Yoshie agree re. leftists trying to get dean nominated which has nothing to do with suggestion i made several days ago, agree also re. moveon although democratic character of lots of groups generally is debatable... as for what happened in chicago following washington's death, there's not *a* reason why things turned, there's bunch of them incuding: racism, daley machine, Washington's death re-opened bitter struggle among various political factions and activists, movement (which is what was happening rather than personal-style campaign) might not have succeeded anyway given competitive character of 'global city' that literally responds to dictates of global capital markets *and/or* dominance of urban 'growth machine'... i previously indicated that example was partial and pointed out as well that washington role was problem for long run (in short run, he helped hold some things and folks together), attempt should be judged on basis of what it was able to accomplish in brief time under very trying circumstances and for its potential (among other things, independent political party was being organized)... responses to my initial post conveyed, by and large, varying degrees of maximalism, making quantitative leap from my modest suggestion all the way to presidential electoral politics (by such measures *all attempts will fail), pervasive problem imo... think i'll leave it at that, michael hoover (checking in for last time from ann arbor where i ran into al haber - an sds founder - the other day, he's trying to rekindle sds as 'students' for dem society on one hand, seniors for dem society on other) -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Hoover wrote: responses to my initial post conveyed, by and large, varying degrees of maximalism, making quantitative leap from my modest suggestion all the way to presidential electoral politics (by such measures *all attempts will fail), pervasive problem imo... The questions of what we can do to improve local governance and what we can do to change national politics shouldn't be put in terms of minimalist vs. maximalist programs, I believe, because it is not the case that you can make even minimal changes in foreign policy by taking the city halls. Even if the Green Party were to succeed in electing Green mayors in all cities in the United States, for instance, an impact of such a dramatic change in local politics on US foreign policy won't be even minimalist -- it will be practically zero. The thing is that it is possible for us to make a lot more changes for better at the local level either by building the Green Party, or taking over local Democratic parties, or pursuing some other measures (we have viable tactics and successful models of various sorts here, lacking only in enough activists willing to put in time and energy), and we should be doing what we can, but taking on national politics is qualitatively (rather than quantitatively) different from working on local politics, and here we can use some innovative ideas. Yoshie
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Even if the Green Party were to succeed in electing Green mayors in all cities in the United States, for instance, an impact of such a dramatic change in local politics on US foreign policy won't be even minimalist -- it will be practically zero. Not necessarily. One can't judge that _If_ as though in a laboratory where one element changes while all other elements remain constant. The conditions under which the GP could elect mayors in several hundred substantial (150k+ population) cities around the u.s. would be conditions which could not occur without profound reverberations elsewhere from the activities which brought about the electoral victories. You and I have both complained about those comments on revolution which presuppose that revolutionary action would occur with all other conditions (as now experienced) remaining constant. (E.g. someone once asked the silly question of how we could ask the working class to risk everything for overthrow of capitalism, when of course we would never ask that but conditions, now unpredictable and undescribable -- perhaps of rising expectations, perhaps of utter chaos, perhaps of something we cannot describe now--would do the asking.) I tend to agree that the local politics route to national power is illusional, but in considering it we can't consider it in a vacuum. The mass assault on u.s. foreign policy which is needed can't demonstrate in D.C. every week (this is a caricature but take it as a gesture towards a more complex reality), and the energies recruited and ultimately aimed towards national impact could well be (partly) nourished and enhanced through local political initiatives, including perhaps the election of mayors or (perhaps though I doubt it) even through contesting for power in local DP organizations. Carrol
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Carrol wrote: even through contesting for power in local DP organizations. At the local level, what a Green politician does and what a really good left-wing Democratic politician does may not be so different anyway. (Real irreconcilable political differences make their appearance at the level above state representatives and senators, I think.) The reason I don't push for working through local Democratic parties is that the Green Party has already shown that it can elect its own candidates for local offices, so why bother trying the second best now? Even if the Green Party were to succeed in electing Green mayors in all cities in the United States, for instance, an impact of such a dramatic change in local politics on US foreign policy won't be even minimalist -- it will be practically zero. Not necessarily. One can't judge that _If_ as though in a laboratory where one element changes while all other elements remain constant. The conditions under which the GP could elect mayors in several hundred substantial (150k+ population) cities around the u.s. would be conditions which could not occur without profound reverberations elsewhere from the activities which brought about the electoral victories. You and I have both complained about those comments on revolution which presuppose that revolutionary action would occur with all other conditions (as now experienced) remaining constant. (E.g. someone once asked the silly question of how we could ask the working class to risk everything for overthrow of capitalism, when of course we would never ask that but conditions, now unpredictable and undescribable -- perhaps of rising expectations, perhaps of utter chaos, perhaps of something we cannot describe now--would do the asking.) I tend to agree that the local politics route to national power is illusional, but in considering it we can't consider it in a vacuum. That's a good point. But, all the arguments in favor of concentrating on local politics that are advanced now here and elsewhere, I think, come with a subtext: you, leftists, had better work on only local issues like zoning -- leave big national and international issues like war and peace to the Democratic Party, because you can't win presidency immediately anyway. To the contrary, war years are especially important years when leftists need to make interventions in national politics, including mounting electoral challenges through presidential elections. The question is how exactly to do that effectively, knowing that our candidate won't become the next POTUS. Yoshie
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Don't you think it will be necessary for the Greens to win a number of congressional seats before they can be seen as a potential alternative to the Democrats by the unions and social movements, and a durable third party in the country as a whole? After all, electoral politics in a capitalist democracy, whether of the presidential or parliamentary kind, ultimately turns on which parties of the left and right can respectively advance the competing agendas of the social movements and business lobbies, and the legislative arena is where this contest centrally unfolds. So you have to have representatives there who can work with the leaders of the mass organizations to help them implement their legislative programs so far as political circumstances permit. This was the route followed by the early labour and socialist parties in continental Europe and the English-speaking countries. The Democrats, of course, currently have a monopoly on this kind of contact in the US. It seems to me Nader's campaigns draw a lot of national attention, but are ephemeral propaganda exercises which don't sink lasting political roots. Green mayoralty campaigns can build local party organizations, but their influence by definition is limited. What kind of emphasis do the US Greens give to winning seats in state legislatures and Congress, and what kind of results have they had to date at this level? Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Frank op-ed piece Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Even if the Green Party were to succeed in electing Green mayors in all cities in the United States, for instance, an impact of such a dramatic change in local politics on US foreign policy won't be even minimalist -- it will be practically zero. Not necessarily. One can't judge that _If_ as though in a laboratory where one element changes while all other elements remain constant. The conditions under which the GP could elect mayors in several hundred substantial (150k+ population) cities around the u.s. would be conditions which could not occur without profound reverberations elsewhere from the activities which brought about the electoral victories. You and I have both complained about those comments on revolution which presuppose that revolutionary action would occur with all other conditions (as now experienced) remaining constant. (E.g. someone once asked the silly question of how we could ask the working class to risk everything for overthrow of capitalism, when of course we would never ask that but conditions, now unpredictable and undescribable -- perhaps of rising expectations, perhaps of utter chaos, perhaps of something we cannot describe now--would do the asking.) I tend to agree that the local politics route to national power is illusional, but in considering it we can't consider it in a vacuum. The mass assault on u.s. foreign policy which is needed can't demonstrate in D.C. every week (this is a caricature but take it as a gesture towards a more complex reality), and the energies recruited and ultimately aimed towards national impact could well be (partly) nourished and enhanced through local political initiatives, including perhaps the election of mayors or (perhaps though I doubt it) even through contesting for power in local DP organizations. Carrol
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Marvin Gandall wrote: Don't you think it will be necessary for the Greens to win a number of congressional seats before they can be seen as a potential alternative to the Democrats by the unions and social movements, and a durable third party in the country as a whole? You are assuming business as usual in u.s. politics. There is another factor in all the discussions of the elections -- the failure of so many to see that social democracy is as dead as stalinism. Both were equally discredited by the events of the twentieth century. Justin argues that there will never again be mass Marxist parties. Could be. But the same argument suggests that there will never again be mass social democratic parties. And if there can be no more social democratic parties (and classical liberalism is one would think equally dead) all the jargon and pieties of social democracy (lesser evils, small gains, progressive wing of bourgeosie) are as dead as the slogans of Stalin's _Foundations of Leninism_. Those leftists appealing to the social democratic tradition (e.g., cooperation with progressive or less reactionary bourgeois politicians) are as trapped in dead pieties as are the Sparticists. ABBs and Sparticists unite in the Graveyard. I think Yoshie has gotten a bit too wrapped up in the Greens (in the 2004 election). We cannot know the form that socialist activity will take in the future, but we can be fairly certain that it will not be electoral and will involve mass resistance to imperialist policies. Arguments against the Greens are equally arguments against paying any attention at all to elections at any level. I think that until the electoral hysteria has ebbed it would be more interesting and more relevant to the future to explore the forms of commodity fetishism int he 21st century. Carrol
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Social democracy is as dead as stalinism. Both were equallydiscredited by the events of the twentieth century. Justin argues thatthere will never again be mass "Marxist" parties. Could be. But the sameargument suggests that there will never again be mass social democraticparties. But aren't there? I mean right now, SD parties govern large chunks of the industrialized world outside the US. They're not militant, sometimes they lean toward neoliberalis, but they command electoral majorities. Not here in the US of course. Here they never took off. And if there can be no more social democratic parties (andclassical liberalism is one would think equally dead) all the jargon andpieties of social democracy (lesser evils, small gains, progressive wingof bourgeosie) Is that how they talk in Europe? are as dead as the slogans of Stalin's _Foundations ofLeninism_. Those leftists appealing to the social democratic tradition(e.g., cooperation with progressive or less reactionary bourgeoispoliticians) are as trapped in dead pieties as are the Sparticists. ABBsand Sparticists unite in the Graveyard. So, we're fucked, right, Carroll? Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 3:07 AM I think if you really wanted to take over the state, you'd be better off with a state-wide IRV campaign. Probably equally doomed, but at least the interim incentives would make more sense: you'd build up an organization outside their grasp that could affect the media and politics independently. This is basically how people passed the term-limits laws. IRV would be more useful: it would really allow you to develop small principled parties that could grow until they won, and which would have an effect on the political discourse from the beginning. Michael term limits 'movement' movers shakers were closely associated with rep party, have read that modern-era notion (term limits idea has long history, pre-american revolution colonial and early republican-era u.s. state legislatures were commonly term limited) was hatched by paul weyrich and his free congress committee or foundation or whatever its called, number of term limits orgs were republican front groups... while '95 u.s. supreme court decision stating that limits for congress could only be imposed via u.s. constitutional amendment, not by individual states upon their own delegations, doesn't seem coincidence that wind began running out of term limits sails when rep party gained controlled of congress... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
In a message dated 7/20/2004 1:20:58 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just one more thing: Is apologizing for the occupation part of being a great "uniter" rather than a "divider" of the working class? Just curious, you know, because my experience with union bureaucracies and leadership was that they were the dividers, like, ummh... Douglas Fraser, who secured his position in the UAW, and I would guess the board of Chrysler, after leading armed goons into the Jefferson Avenue plant to break the wildcat strike of the mostly African-American workers protesting the speed-ups and lack of safety. Now that's unity._ Comment Yea . . . Doug Fraser was a piece of work. An old timer out of the Desoto plants and "hard fist socialists" - rough counterpart to say A. Philip Randolph. Fraser was rewarded with a seat on the Chrysler Board of Directors in the wake of the company's failure to meet its obligations in the bond market in 1980 . . . the collapse hit November 1979 when Chrysler reported its greatest lost of revenue in history. The Jefferson events of 1973 was part of an intense strike wave. The summer months in Chrysler plants were unbearable . . . which no one understood because at that time Chrysler was the largest producer of industrial air conditioning units. The speed up . . . literally turning the speed of the assembly line up . . . was unbearable. You would literally run to keep up. On July 24, 1973 Issac Shorter and Larry Carter took direct action and climbed into the elctric power control cage and pushed one button and shut down the assembly line. They negoitated with the company directly from the cage and the workers pretended any action of force from removing them until the grievences were met. 13 hours later both of them were carried from the cage into the streets on the shoulders of a mass of workers that remain one of the most famous and important pictures of this era. Our unit immediately recruited Shorter into the Communist League . . . who had been the local Chairman of the Panther's Committee to Combat Fascism in Cleveland Mississippi. He had left Mississippi . . . goddamn . . . and move to Los Angeles and got a job with Chrysler only to be laid off. In 1971 he arrived in Detroit already political. A few weeks later the Chrysler Forge plant went on an unauthorized strike . . . a "wildcat strike" over working conditions. Fraser had stated earlier in respect to the Jefferson "wild cat strike" that the company had lost its "manhood" by not going through union channels and negotiating directly with the insurgents. At the Forge strike Fraser showed up in force with a squad of goons. The workers would not bulge and Fraser invited one of the leaders outside for a gentleman game of fisticuffs . . . a white worker named John Taylor who was a member of the Motor City Labor League. Anyone that even heard of John Taylor knew he was anything but soft. A year or two later all of us combined together to form the Communist Labor Party. "You want soft? . . . you better go get toilet paper. With the cameras rolling John politely explained that there was no need to go outside because we can fight our way onto the fucking street. Fraser back down on television and his goons were hopelessly outnumbered with many of them on the side of the strikers. The intensity of this strike wave was such that the conservative Detroit News was running headlines like . . . "Chrysler Treats Men Like A Piece of Meat." By the summer of 1973 there were dozens of groups with hundreds of active members in the plants. The cyclical nature of auto would disrupt all forms of organization because the cycles of work generally ran 36 months . . . maximum. Fraser was bad news all over and outlived his moment in history. He was not a bad individual as such but outlived his moment in history. For the record it was Alonzo Chandler and Larry Robinson (DA Mitchell) . . . because Larry Robinson was a phony name used because many of us were black balled and all had alias to get work . . . that recruited Shorter into the Communist League. Actually Alonzo was working under an alias that would not be resolved until he retired in year 2000 and the union won recognition of his work under another name. Even General Baker, Jr. worked under another name for Ford . . . Alexander Ware and the company tried to fired him when they found out. He won his case because their is a contract clause that allows anyone to work under an alias if they last 18 months on the job. I actually picked up 6 months toward retirement from someone working under my name at Jefferson Assembly. The established leaders are . . . established on the basis of another cycle of the class struggle and composition of the working class. Those were the days. John would have been harshly criticized for fighting Fraser because he was to old. On
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Thanks for that Brother Melvin. Damned if I didn't think that Fraser tried to fight his way into Jefferson Avenue. But I was out of Detroit in 1973, and heard about it, and the other battles, from friends. 1970-73 were the years, though, weren't they. Funny how it coincides with a peak in the rate of profit, a big dip, and then a recovery in the rate. Do remember the brothers taking over the cage. That one created a picture in my head that will never go away. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Frank op-ed piece In a message dated 7/20/2004 1:20:58 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just one more thing: Is apologizing for the occupation part of being a great "uniter" rather than a "divider" of the working class? Just curious, you know, because my experience with union bureaucracies and leadership was that they were the dividers, like, ummh... Douglas Fraser, who secured his position in the UAW, and I would guess the board of Chrysler, after leading armed goons into the Jefferson Avenue plant to break the wildcat strike of the mostly African-American workers protesting the speed-ups and lack of safety. Now that's unity._ Comment Yea . . . Doug Fraser was a piece of work. An old timer out of the Desoto plants and "hard fist socialists" - rough counterpart to say A. Philip Randolph. Fraser was rewarded with a seat on the Chrysler Board of Directors in the wake of the company's failure to meet its obligations in the bond market in 1980 . . . the collapse hit November 1979 when Chrysler reported its greatest lost of revenue in history. The Jefferson events of 1973 was part of an intense strike wave. The summer months in Chrysler plants were unbearable . .
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Hoover wrote: A person who puts forward a proposal should be prepared to act on it. Otherwise, others will simply conclude that, if the idea is not even worth the proposer's time, then, it's not worth their time either. -- Yoshie people do different things, as for doug, he's a reporter (he may think of himself in other terms), i've indicated number of times in past impact that i think this has on his perspective re. certain things, but above conclusion is not necessarily one of them, in any event, i made suggestion (hesitate to call it proposal) not him... michael hoover (who has actually attended local dem ex com meetings) I'm asking if anyone will be doing it, because it's not a new idea, and a lot of people -- from famous guys like Michael Moore to local activists -- have proposed exactly the same thing, but they never do it themselves, much less try to make it a nationwide effort (to do the latter, you need a solid nationwide organization that exists outside electoral politics -- otherwise, no coordination among local attempts). At 3:18 PM -0400 7/21/04, Doug Henwood wrote: I don't have a lot of time to spare anyway Most Americans -- 99.99% of Americans? -- feel exactly the same way as you do. In any event, the Green Party has proven that it is possible to elect a lot of third-party city council persons, aldermen, and even a number of mayors: http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html. It can continue to elect more of them, and it will probably be able to make inroads into statehouses by doing more of the same. The GP organizing has worked at local levels. The idea that we need is how to make the GP a political party that can elect its candidates to the highest levels of national political offices: representatives, senators, governors, and president. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece/union democracy and revolutionary impulse
In a message dated 7/22/2004 4:36:59 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for that Brother Melvin. Damned if I didn't think that Fraser tried to fight his way into Jefferson Avenue. But I was out of Detroit in 1973, and heard about it, and the other battles, from friends. 1970-73 were the years, though, weren't they. Funny how it coincides with a peak in the rate of profit, a big dip, and then a recovery in the rate. Reply Yea man . . . many folks on the left called this the period of the "Black Workers insurgency" but this description is inaccurate. One day after the Forge Strike was settled and Fraser backed down from this threat to fight the militant leaders . . . Mack Stamping plant exploded. William Gilbreth . . . a white member of Progressive Labor and member of the Workers Action Movement touched off the strike when he was fired for agitating over working conditions. He returned to work the next day on his regularly scheduled shift and sat down on the conveyor belt and the shift hit the fan. Gilbreth was what we called an open communist and the list of demand drawn up on the spot contained some party demands including a 30 hour work week. No one in their right mind opposed 30 for 40 . . . even those who did not know what it meant or how it was to be implemented. 30 for 40 sound good and meant more for less. All the local militants from every plant in the Detroit area showed up at Mack and lend support. All the subtle difference concerning the meaning of Marx in Chapter 25 of volume 48 in respect to an obscure footnote means nothing during a strike wave. Yet . . . the workers were eating up copies of the Communist Manifesto and walking around with "State and Revolution" in their coveralls. Most did not read the book but like the way "State and Revolution" sounded and would ask the seller of literature what the book was about. The standard reply was overthrowing the state and revolution and the reply would always be "give me a copy of that." Any way Fraser had learned his lesson from John Taylor and the Forge strike and this time he vowed to open the plant with union members. Interestingly during this period the company never considered calling on the police. The riot of 67 and 1968 had not been that long ago and the Southern white workers relocated to Detroit did most of the shooting and sniping at police and army guys . . . true story. To my memory and knowledge not one black person was shot by these white southern workers. Fraser cut a deal with the police Commissioner John Nicholas . . . who had declared that he would run for Mayor of Detroit. Detroit was a political inferno. All the scattered groups producing thousands of leaflets and distributing hundred of thousands copies of newspapers could not keep pace with the masses in motion. Now the police were in a state of panic because three guys had formed themselves into a unit and were kicking in the doors of dope houses and robbing them and leafleting neighborhoods talking about "off the dope pusher." One evening they were stopped by the police during a traffic check and this lead to gun play with them escaping and a couple officers dead. Any way this story played itself out a couple years later with one of them being slain in Atlanta Georgia. When his body was returned to Detroit for a funeral a little over 5,000 people showed up to paid honor and the local media went berserk . . . basically calling the masses ignorant lawless mutherfuckers. The men that made up this unit were known to all of us and named "Brown, Boyd and Bethune" . . . or the three "B's" or the blade, boot and the bullet. Our lead attorney's had gotten Brown exonerated before a jury of his peers and the political polarization was thicker than New York cheese cake. Back to Fraser. After the workers shut down Mack Fraser cut his deal with the Police Commissioner and showed up at the plant gate with 2,000 union members . . . many retired to open the plant. Some fighting took place but the size of the goon squad was overwhelming and caught everyone by surprise. It was a sad day for the union and forever spilt the union because workers who did not like communist propaganda could not comprehend why the top Union leaders would organized against its own members. For the rest of the year local union went in receivership for ousting the Woodcock slate and condemning Fraser in resolution after resolution . . . starting at the old Griggs Local . . . and they where the first to go under receivership. (Receivership means the International Union suspends all the local representatives and take over the day to day running of the Local Union). That was the fight for union democracy. Marxism is going to hit the streets in a big way and the semi-illiterate mass is going tolearn how to read in groups reading communist leaflets and books . . . really . . . and nothing on earth is going to
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 1:19 PM I think maybe I've over-interpreted your question. I seem to be going a level of specficity beyond what you're looking for. If all you meant to ask was is it useful for lefties to engage in electoral politics with some of their energies? then my answer's yes, and we have no more argument. I thought you were talking about the relative merits of specific strategies -- becoming Democrats, trying to become the dominant Democrats, launching a third party, going half and half (the fusion strategy), working as outside pressure groups, fighting to change the electoral rules, etc. Michael my modest suggestion was about folks looking into their local dem executive committees, for example, i live in orange county, florida, most precincts have no dem workers at all, comittee chair positions ae vacant... my experience in working with local dems years ago is that they want everything their way, can recall going to local executive committee for support/endorsement of activities/projects such as trying to save african-american school building that had been abandoned by school board during 70s desegregation (circumstance repeated throughout south) and they were sympathetic - typical liberal crap - but could really see nothing in it for them, executive council members only see things in terms of potential voters and really had little use for much else see nothing (which is understandable from their narrow perspective and also politically useless)... i also worked on a couple of campaigns at that time for 'progressive' candidates shunned by local dem committee, matter might have been different had there been slate of such candidates (which i argued for and was never able to convince enough people to pursue) and if committee was comprised of like-minded folks... point - in my mind - would certainly not be to become dems as such but to maybe create some tension within local dem organizational structures and, perhaps, try tu use those structures a bit, people could continue to focus on/do whatever activities they're already working on and they could agitate amongst local dem 'leadership' groups as well... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/04 8:26 AM I'm asking if anyone will be doing it, because it's not a new idea, and a lot of people -- from famous guys like Michael Moore to local activists -- have proposed exactly the same thing, but they never do it themselves, much less try to make it a nationwide effort (to do the latter, you need a solid nationwide organization that exists outside electoral politics -- otherwise, no coordination among local attempts). In any event, the Green Party has proven that it is possible to elect a lot of third-party city council persons, aldermen, and even a number of mayors: http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html. It can continue to elect more of them, and it will probably be able to make inroads into statehouses by doing more of the same. The GP organizing has worked at local levels. The idea that we need is how to make the GP a political party that can elect its candidates to the highest levels of national political offices: representatives, senators, governors, and president. Yoshie as i mentioned in earlier post on this matte and as anyone who has ever attended such meeting will testfiy, county party executive committees meetings can be dreadfully boring (as can meetings of all stripes, obviously) and one can't miss too many of them in order to retain membership... i posted list of reasons why i think that few people want to have a go at it and my own experience suggests that folks i'd like to see engaged see it as too 'establishment'... partial example of what i've been trying to get at: harold washington's brief time as chicago mayor in the mid-1980s remains important because what emerged was a potentially powerful dialectical relationship between politicians and movement, politicos in downtown 'suites' were emboldened by activsts in neighorhood 'streets', political mobilization and organization operated 'outside of government' yet were linked 'organically'' to it worked to embolden policymakers. Results were, admittedly, limited (but achieved in face of white-dominated city council and under scrutiny of white local media), but included some shifting power and resources to neighborhoods (including creating neighborhood coops), fostering further mobilization of previously inactive folks (neighborhood orgs could review all city economic development programs and submit economic assistance proposals), and attempting some redistribution towards lower-income individuals/groups (considere no-no for municipal gov't because spending on the poor requires higher local taxes that are unattractive to potential investors), things imploded in aftermath of washington's (not necessarily my idea of appealing politician but that's not point)untimely death... was underwhelmed by list of elected green party members, most had no links to them, number of links to some who did were apparently broken, and most sites i was able to access made no mention that folks were green party members, most offices held are probably nonpartisan with respect to ballot but i'd have thought these people would want to highlight/promote green party and their membership in it at their websites, no indication of concerted party efforts but rather individual candidates running conventional campaigns that have little real connection to one another (nothing wrong with this but not indication of party growth/strength)... michael hoover (who has probably posted too much on this topic at this juncture) -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Doug Henwood wrote: maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, use available funds to issue policy statements and press releases one after another, show up at public and government meetings, control of county dem mechanisms might lead to control of state dem parties... This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's the argument against it? There are two basically: one, it's impossible, and two, you won't be able to do anything with it. The reason is that the incentives are all on the other side and that all state party machines are collusive. In New York City, where you and I live, nothing short of the governorship would allow us to accomplish anything in the state worth doing. Lower level success would allow you to make symbolic gestures which by and large have already been made in our home town, from domestic partnership to living wage law to declarations against the war and patriot act. Almost everything important in New York City (as in most cities) can only be accomplished with permission from the state. And the state, as everyone knows, is run by three men in a room: the head of the state assembly, the head of the state senate, and the governor. All the other state legislators are superfluous. They do do good in the world: they do constituent service, which, if you've ever been in need of it, you know can really be a godsend. But it's not the sort of thing we want to dedicate our lives to doing. And yet you'd have to win the vast majority of these positions, each of them is inherently useless to you, in order to control the state party. But for your opponent, the machine, these seats are far from useless. For the machine members who run for them, they're jobs, they are their livelihood, for which they will fight tooth and nail. And the main thing they control is more jobs in the form of patronage, all the recipients of which will likewise fight tooth and nail: judges, clerks, armies of lawyers dependent on the distribution of trustee and estates, receipients of city jobs, etc. They have something very concrete to lose in the here and now. Our side would be fighting for something quite vague in the distant future. But then to make things worse, as we approach each tiny vicity, the odds against us double and quadruple because the Democrat and Republican state machines are defined by their collusion. The reason there is a 99% reelect rate is because no one is ever really opposed. Much of the time they aren't even nominally opposed. The two parties in New York, like in most other states, have made collusive agreements never to go after each other's seats. The minority party (which is different in different parts of the states) has just as much interest in this as the majority party; both parties control the jobs they have and want that to continue indefinately; real elections would threaten this. The end result is that it is more important to them to remain in control of their parties than to win elections; and this is their ultimate weapon. If an insurgent ever wins a contested primary, the party machine not only doesn't support their election; it actively fights against them by helping the other party to win. It sounds outrageous but it happens all the time -- that is, it happens all the times that insurgents actually run, which doesn't happen much. The two parties have an equal interest in opposing any upstart because it threatens both their machines. And if perchance you should win and get in the state legislature, the party will make sure you have zero power and will do everything possible to defeat you the next time around, first within the primary and then using the other party again. Whereas on you side, you'll really have nothing to show for your efforts for toil. It will be impossible for you to get any legislation started or to do much of anything else that would gain you a good name. And the odds of you winning reelections are even lower than your odds of getting in in the first place since the party will be mobilized against and has a vast array of dirty tricks. And then you have to repeat this, and keep holding onto it, for each seat in the state, all the while gaining nothing, while the other side has meat and potatoes at stake. And then comes the worst thing at all: if you actually do take over the state party so that you can control the nomination of federal level offices, you'll run into exactly the same thing at the federal level. I think if you really wanted to take over the state, you'd be better off with a state-wide IRV campaign. Probably equally doomed, but at least the interim incentives would make more sense: you'd build up an organization outside their grasp that could affect the media and politics independently. This is basically how people passed the
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
indeed i read about this, and it only adds to my doubt. i am not very knowledgeable about iraq but is it not possible that the thugs who will rush in to fill the void left by a suddenly departed US army, would be worse? i remember reading pieces about east timor, rwanda, and elsewhere, of the horrors that ensued when any provisional authority pulled out (in those cases these authorities were a bit more legitimate, such as the UN). isnt it important not to forget that their thugs are as bad as ours? only, we can try to control our thugs but they cannot control theirs or ours. --ravi --- I personally have no real opinion on this subject, since I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on what's happening in Iraq, but over in this part of the world the powers-that-be are very worried that Iraq is going to wind up as a fundamentalist state sitting on huge amounts of oil reserves that would try to further destabilize Central Asia, which would be really bad. (Then again, a fundamentalist state dependent on Iran might even be a good thing for the Kremlin, since relations between Moscow and Tehran are pretty close and Russia views Iran as a moderating influence in the Muslim world. One of the first things Putin did after he became president was to invite Khattami to the opening of a new mosque in Tatarstan.) __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
An argument against it? You would actually try it yourself if it were really a good idea. Yoshie nah, doug's a journalist, he'd write about it... michael hoover A person who puts forward a proposal should be prepared to act on it. Otherwise, others will simply conclude that, if the idea is not even worth the proposer's time, then, it's not worth their time either. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Pollak wrote: This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's the argument against it? There are two basically: one, it's impossible, and two, you won't be able to do anything with it. The reason is that the incentives are all on the other side and that all state party machines are collusive. I think you're overstating things. The infiltration strategy could have some influence on who gets elected, and also on the environment in which other elected officials operate - they'll have to respond to and compromise with a whole new set of actors. Maybe. It is to be hoped that. New York state wouldn't be about to raise its minimum wage if the Working Families Party hadn't been agitating for it - and the WFP is sort of playing the entryist game. Doug
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
THEIR thugs are OUR thugs, just as they were in Afghanistan. It is the decimation of the social structure under US attack that creates the opportunity for and the thugs themselves. We can control our thugs? That must be comforting to all those in US run prisons. I can't wait until somebody in the US military tells them how much better off they are. The facts are that the economy is worse off now than before; living standards continue to decline; oil revenues are misappropriated. This was/is a capitalist assault against the social costs of reproducing an economy that might support something more than starvation and deprivation. The only rationale, humane, position is the radical and revolutionary position, OUT NOW, and that's just for starters. From: Chris Doss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jul 21, 2004 6:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Frank op-ed piece indeed i read about this, and it only adds to my doubt. i am not very knowledgeable about iraq but is it not possible that the thugs who will rush in to fill the void left by a suddenly departed US army, would be worse? i remember reading pieces about east timor, rwanda, and elsewhere, of the horrors that ensued when any provisional authority pulled out (in those cases these authorities were a bit more legitimate, such as the UN). isnt it important not to forget that their thugs are as bad as ours? only, we can try to control our thugs but they cannot control theirs or ours. --ravi --- I personally have no real opinion on this subject, since I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on what's happening in Iraq, but over in this part of the world the powers-that-be are very worried that Iraq is going to wind up as a fundamentalist state sitting on huge amounts of oil reserves that would try to further destabilize Central Asia, which would be really bad. (Then again, a fundamentalist state dependent on Iran might even be a good thing for the Kremlin, since relations between Moscow and Tehran are pretty close and Russia views Iran as a moderating influence in the Muslim world. One of the first things Putin did after he became president was to invite Khattami to the opening of a new mosque in Tatarstan.) __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
In a message dated 7/21/2004 11:03:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The facts are that the economy is worse off now than before; living standards continue to decline; oil revenues are misappropriated. This was/is a capitalist assault against the social costs of reproducing an economy that might support something more than starvation and deprivation. The only rationale, humane, position is the radical and revolutionary position, OUT NOW, and that's just for starters. Comment This thread is needed and heart breaking. Being compelled to ask if the people of Iraq are better off today than they were yesterday . . . is mindboggling. Our government bombed this country for ten years after Desert Storm . . . inflcited horrible destruction upon the people of Iraq . . . murdering their babies . . . then destroyed their infrastructure to a large degree and one is asked if the new rulers are going to be better than those who created the situation in the first place. What kind of question is that? The idea that we are bringing democracy and goodness to the world and people of Iraq is not well thought out and without any merit whatsoever. We are to pretend that this was not plunder on a grand scale? The first targets seized in Iraq were the national museums and banks . . . stealing national artifacts and money in full view of the world. Then . . . then . . . one of the primary objectives was targeted (among other geopolitical considerations of the bourgeoisie) . . . making sure that Iraqi oil was taken off the world market to manipulate the price of oil upwards as the bourgeoisie's answer to falling rates of profit! "Their thugs" . . . are most certainly our thugs or as it is called in the penal institutions of America . . . "turn keys" for the Warden or the bourgeois order headed by our personalbourgeoisie. "Out Now" is urgent because we could not prevent them from going in . . . in the first place. If we could have stayed the hand of our bourgeoisie . . . there would be no need to even "discuss" whose bad guys are the worst. Melvin P.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Doug Henwood wrote: I think you're overstating things. The infiltration strategy could have some influence on who gets elected, and also on the environment in which other elected officials operate - they'll have to respond to and compromise with a whole new set of actors. Maybe. Sure, but when you phrase it this way, it no longer has anything to do with taking over the party at the local level the way the conservatives did. Now you're just talking about becoming part of the democratic party oursevles and working for the most progressive of the candidates that are already possible within the existing spectrum. And elect a Cynthia McKinney or a Jerry Nadler. What the conservatives did was very different. But they also had very different issues than us -- ones that 1) they deeply believed in; 2) which could be vitally affected at the most local levels; and 3) which were so far off the map that they rated immmediate news and affected the national discourse namely the school issues of prayer and creationism, and the strategy of constraining abortion by the death of a thousand pin prick regulations. I don't know if we have any issues that fill those three conditions. Can anyone think of any? New York state wouldn't be about to raise its minimum wage if the Working Families Party hadn't been agitating for it - and the WFP is sort of playing the entryist game. No! They definately are not. They are playing the third party fusion game, which is a different game entirely which entirely avoids all the problems I laid out. New York is one of the only states you can play that game and you're right, they are having a tiny effect at the margin. But in all honesty I think they are overblowing their own horn on this issue. I don't think they were decisive. It's a Democratic party issue this year from the national level on down. (And it's classically Democratic -- they keep raising it less than it's lost by inflation, so they can argue with mainstream models that it can't possibly be hurting job growth, just stopping exploitation. They are not challenging the model.) You can also go the Labor Party route and push for an issues that would be both transformative and yet still conceivable within the existing discourse, like comprehensive health care and child care. Especially outside New York where the fusion route is not a possibility. But none of these is the take over the local and then state party from the grass roots route. Michael
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Pollak wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Doug Henwood wrote: I think you're overstating things. The infiltration strategy could have some influence on who gets elected, and also on the environment in which other elected officials operate - they'll have to respond to and compromise with a whole new set of actors. Maybe. Sure, but when you phrase it this way, it no longer has anything to do with taking over the party at the local level the way the conservatives did. That could be the long-term goal. But there could also be accomplishments along the way. Now you're just talking about becoming part of the democratic party oursevles and working for the most progressive of the candidates that are already possible within the existing spectrum. And elect a Cynthia McKinney or a Jerry Nadler. But having more people on the inside would make it more likely that folks like that could get nominated. Speaking of Nadler, any word on hos his stomach stapling is going? I haven't seen him around the neighborhood in ages. What the conservatives did was very different. But they also had very different issues than us -- ones that 1) they deeply believed in; 2) which could be vitally affected at the most local levels; and 3) which were so far off the map that they rated immmediate news and affected the national discourse namely the school issues of prayer and creationism, and the strategy of constraining abortion by the death of a thousand pin prick regulations. I don't know if we have any issues that fill those three conditions. Can anyone think of any? Local minimum wage/living wage laws. State-financed public health insurance. Workplace safety regs. Equal pay enforcement. Alternative energy experiments. Land use/sprawl issues. Small school experiments. Road pricing. Etc. New York state wouldn't be about to raise its minimum wage if the Working Families Party hadn't been agitating for it - and the WFP is sort of playing the entryist game. No! They definately are not. They are playing the third party fusion game They're not entirely independent of the Dem Party. They're doing an inside/outside thing. Joel Rogers told me that was the New Party strategy ten or twelve years ago. Doug
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Doug Henwood wrote: What the conservatives did was very different. But they also had very different issues than us -- ones that 1) they deeply believed in; 2) which could be vitally affected at the most local levels; and 3) which were so far off the map that they rated immmediate news and affected the national discourse namely the school issues of prayer and creationism, and the strategy of constraining abortion by the death of a thousand pin prick regulations. I don't know if we have any issues that fill those three conditions. Can anyone think of any? Local minimum wage/living wage laws. Workplace safety regulations. Them we have already in New York. State-financed public health insurance. Equal pay enforcement. Those can only be affected at the state level, -- which in our state, means taking over governorship and the speakership. Nothing short of that would have any effect at all. There would be no interim victories. You can't nominate the speaker without taking over the state wide party. Theoretically you could however take over the governorship through a third party or through an outside draft -- in which case you don't have to take over the party machine. Alternative energy experiments. Land use/sprawl issues. Small school experiments. Road pricing. Etc. To the extent those are local (like protesting development or setting up charter schools) they're really not party issues. To the extent you want state aid in terms of money or grid that buys back power, it's another speakership/governorship issue. No! They definately are not. They are playing the third party fusion game They're not entirely independent of the Dem Party. They're doing an inside/outside thing. Yes, I know, that's what the fusion strategy is all about. I think maybe I've over-interpreted your question. I seem to be going a level of specficity beyond what you're looking for. If all you meant to ask was is it useful for lefties to engage in electoral politics with some of their energies? then my answer's yes, and we have no more argument. I thought you were talking about the relative merits of specific strategies -- becoming Democrats, trying to become the dominant Democrats, launching a third party, going half and half (the fusion strategy), working as outside pressure groups, fighting to change the electoral rules, etc. Michael
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Pollak wrote: Those can only be affected at the state level, -- which in our state, means taking over governorship and the speakership. Nothing short of that would have any effect at all. This is curiously maximalist for you. Organized efforts can influence incumbents if they feel like their incumbency is threatened. You don't need a total takeover to have an influence. Doug
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Those can only be affected at the state level, -- which in our state, means taking over governorship and the speakership. Nothing short of that would have any effect at all. This is curiously maximalist for you. Organized efforts can influence incumbents if they feel like their incumbency is threatened. You don't need a total takeover to have an influence. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear -- I meant no effort *within the state party* can have any effect. State legislators are ciphers. They don't even get a chance to read the legislation. Only the speaker, the Senate leader and the governor count in making laws. That's gospel. No one who knows NY state politics will dispute it. And you can't have the speakership without a majority. You can certainly affect the three men in a room through organized efforts *on the parties from outside.* I would never dispute that. 1199 had a huge effect on health care that way in 2002. And there are tons of other examples. But those are not party efforts. Those are groups organized outside the parties exerting their influence. Michael
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/20/04 7:52 PM Daniel Davies wrote: I'd be *very* careful how one went about this. It feels like entryism, and the experience of the (UK) Labour Party in the 1980s suggests that the 'mainstream' Dems would react to it very badly indeed (by which I mean that this, if it didn't work, would be the *end* of friendly relationships between the US Left (S.A.I.I) and the Democratic Party. We're not talking about people like Militant I hope. Our Trots wouldn't touch the DP with a 10-ft pole. (On this question, even some ex-Trots carry on the tradition, suggesting that membership is that community is a lot like the Party of the Right, for life at least.) We're talking about Nader voters, Greens, liberal Dems, etc. Of course that they lack the discipline of Militant they'll get chewed up quickly by the DP machinery. Doug interesting that someone referred to militant tendency/labour, i put 'entryism' in scare quotes in followup post to my suggestion re. dem county executive councils, was curious if anyone would comment as such... but my suggestion really differs from uk experience, no 'party within party' stuff... there is no dem party machinery in orblando... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 3:07 AM On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Doug Henwood wrote: maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, use available funds to issue policy statements and press releases one after another, show up at public and government meetings, control of county dem mechanisms might lead to control of state dem parties... This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's the argument against it? There are two basically: one, it's impossible, and two, you won't be able to do anything with it. The reason is that the incentives are all on the other side and that all state party machines are collusive. In New York City, where you and I live, nothing short of the governorship would allow us to accomplish anything in the state worth doing. Lower level success would allow you to make symbolic gestures which by and large have already been made in our home town, from domestic partnership to living wage law to declarations against the war and patriot act. I think if you really wanted to take over the state, you'd be better off with a state-wide IRV campaign. Probably equally doomed, but at least the interim incentives would make more sense: you'd build up an organization outside their grasp that could affect the media and politics independently. This is basically how people passed the term-limits laws. IRV would be more useful: it would really allow you to develop small principled parties that could grow until they won, and which would have an effect on the political discourse from the beginning. Michael another of michael pollak's well-reasoned posts, you've offered number of specific obstacles re. new york (factors relevant to other locales as well), in some ways, however, your example can be used in support of above suggestion which was assumed nation-wide effort (there are 3000 counties in us, most have dem/rep executive councils serving as 'structural' foundation of respective parties)... florida dems dominated state politics until last couple of decades, but there was really no party as such, ambitious individuals decided to run, put together their own campaign org, raised their own money, in number of ways, state was ahead of the curve re. 'candidate-centered' elections... neither of two major parties in u.s. are 'mass'' organizations, membershp in many places consists several 'activists' who function as local executive committee and who recruit 'activists' to help party candidate campaigns, self-selected candidates often don't care whether they get local party support or not (and sometimes prefer not), surely progressive/left folks can do better than this with whatever shell of an organization exists... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 8:41 AM An argument against it? You would actually try it yourself if it were really a good idea. Yoshie nah, doug's a journalist, he'd write about it... michael hoover A person who puts forward a proposal should be prepared to act on it. Otherwise, others will simply conclude that, if the idea is not even worth the proposer's time, then, it's not worth their time either. -- Yoshie people do different things, as for doug, he's a reporter (he may think of himself in other terms), i've indicated number of times in past impact that i think this has on his perspective re. certain things, but above conclusion is not necessarily one of them, in any event, i made suggestion (hesitate to call it proposal) not him... michael hoover (who has actually attended local dem ex com meetings) -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Hoover wrote: people do different things, as for doug, he's a reporter (he may think of himself in other terms), i've indicated number of times in past impact that i think this has on his perspective re. certain things I usually say journalist, but I won't complain about reporter. I'm clearly not objective, in the New York Times-approved sense, but getting involved in party politics would ruin whatever credibility I have - and I don't have a lot of time to spare anyway. According to the old formula for policial action - agitate, educate, and organize - I concentrate on the first two. There are plenty of people around to handle the third. Doug
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
i am going to try to do a bunch of responses in one message, so i do not flood the list. this sub-thread (initiated by me) seems to be going in the direction of a few previous ones which resulted in a flamewar (some of it off-list). for that reason: (1) i want to point out that i am only asking questions here -- i do not have a preferred position. if any of my messages imply otherwise, please disregard. (2) if this does turn into a flamewar, i will hold off on further posts, to avoid list traffic. Michael Perelman wrote: On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:37:03PM -0400, ravi wrote: what then of US responsibility to clean up the mess we created? it seems to me that many (not necessarily on pen-l) who call for the return of the troops are primarily motivated by their concern for the safety of american soldiers. many of these same people i am sure supported the invasion that put these soldiers in iraq! why not first the call: US corporations out of iraq? The US establishment could do a lot more good by leaving Iraq, admitting that they were wrong, that the press screwed up, and warning that the people should be more attentive to the truth next time. yes, lot more good at home. but does anything but the first point (leaving iraq) make a difference for iraqis? and it is the first point that is under question. Ravi, with all due respect, Iif the US really wanted to make things better the money that they spend now could buy many more Islamic soldiers, without the stigma of US control. probably true, but we probably cannot convince the powers to follow the above plan. or should we be pressing for it? If the US left Iraqis decide the fate of their gov't, it would probably be anti-American and theocratic. and is that a good thing for the iraqis? actually, if the US left iraq, would there be a govt? the current one is itself a bit of a sham. but the military is too blunt an object to acomplish anything good. that may be the real reason to pull out i.e., if we (on the left) are to advocate pulling out the troops, we need to make explicit our reasons, lest we be lumped with the jingoists calling for withdrawal, but concerned only with american lives. s.artesian wrote: THEIR thugs are OUR thugs, just as they were in Afghanistan. It is the decimation of the social structure under US attack that creates the opportunity for and the thugs themselves. We can control our thugs? That must be comforting to all those in US run prisons. I can't wait until somebody in the US military tells them how much better off they are. i agree with your first point. it is the US attack that created the environment for thugs to arise and gain power. but now that that is the situation on the ground, what is the best thing for iraqi people? how would their condition improve or degrade if the US left? w.r.t controlling our thugs: i believe we can indeed do that. i tend to think of the points raised by chomsky in his piece on the responsibility of intellectuals (substitute for intellectuals: the relatively freer financially safe/stable US resident members of pen-l; well most i would guess). like me... sitting here typing this message. instead i could be out on the street organizing a civil disobedience effort to correct the actions of the thugs that control my govt. if an iraqi tried to control his thugs in a similar manner, allawi would probably put a bullet in his head. no? The facts are that the economy is worse off now than before; living standards continue to decline; oil revenues are misappropriated. i agree. these conditions are a direct result of the US invasion. are they made worse by the presence of US troops? lets pull the US govt out of iraq. let us prevent contracts from being handed out to any international corporations. let us call for a UN force to bring about a real elections, based on a real constitution designed by the people. let US troops be under such UN command and perhaps even used only in a non-combat role. wouldn't all that help the iraqi people? or would the removal of all foreign presence in iraq lead to peace and justice in iraq? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This thread is needed and heart breaking. Being compelled to ask if the people of Iraq are better off today than they were yesterday . . . is mindboggling. Our government bombed this country for ten years after Desert Storm . . . inflcited horrible destruction upon the people of Iraq . . . murdering their babies . . . then destroyed their infrastructure to a large degree and one is asked if the new rulers are going to be better than those who created the situation in the first place. What kind of question is that? when you say being compelled to ask, do you end up answering your question above: it is the kind of question that is both heart breaking and compelling. would you say that nothing that can happen in iraq after a sudden US pullout would be worse than what we have and are continuing to do/done
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Hoover wrote: people do different things, as for doug, he's a reporter (he may think of himself in other terms), i've indicated number of times in past impact that i think this has on his perspective re. certain things To which Doug Henwood replied: I usually say journalist, but I won't complain about reporter. I'm clearly not objective, in the New York Times-approved sense, but getting involved in party politics would ruin whatever credibility I have - and I don't have a lot of time to spare anyway. According to the old formula for policial action - agitate, educate, and organize - I concentrate on the first two. There are plenty of people around to handle the third. Doug Response Jim C: First of all, I have always seen these dimensions of political action as dialectially united and inseparable with each dimension informing, shaping and testing the others. It is through organizing and organizing goals/imperatives for example, that one directs, sees and tests effectiveness--or lack of effectiveness--on the agitational and educational fronts. Plus, real-world organizing often provides the raw data and information (outside of ideologically cherry-picked sources of data, methodologies and data)for effective agitation and education. On the issue of objectivity, I have always thought of degree of objectivity being a function of--and defined by--degrees of intellectual honesty, humility and courage along with methodological rigor--without fear or favor--as opposed to some supposed/asserted non-bias (the only people not biased are those in comas, dead or so brain damaged as not to know what planet they are on). In this sense, the NYT (not all the news that fit to print but rather all the news that is print to fit--the interests of the ruling class) meets none of tests or definitions of objectivity. On the issue of self-identity and self-identification, I have always defined myself not in terms of my primary occupation for purposes of earning a living--in my case an academic--but rather in terms of my core values and yes, biases--anti-Imperialist, anti-racist, anti-colonialist, anti-fascist, anti-capitalist... Jim C.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Michael Hoover wrote: self-selected candidates often don't care whether they get local party support or not (and sometimes prefer not), surely progressive/left folks can do better than this with whatever shell of an organization exists... I think there is now a much more effective model available for affecting the nomination than taking over the party: the MoveOn model. MoveOn almost nominated Dean. If we on the left in New York want to nominate a more left Governor, I think the obvious way to do is get a good democrat to put their name up, and then back them them with a MoveOn style campaign aimed at the state. MoveOn has been incredibly effective in both raising money and increasing the size of the electoral cadre by lowering the price of commitment. The only problem with it is that it's run by a couple of democratic party hacks. But the best way to change that is to set up a more left one. And since they are largely tone deaf, I think you could actually beat them at their game now that they've been kind enough to write the software and show the way. Michael
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Please, before you remark upon others's comments-- I didn't know you were the moderator. I'll let your request for further discussion on another subject go. Clearly you think you know what I think and don't want to waste my time trying to disabuse you of your sagacious superiority. I'll be sure to avoid reading your posts in the future. Take care, Joel Wendland _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/04 6:29 PM Michael Hoover wrote: maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, use available funds to issue policy statements and press releases one after another, show up at public and government meetings, control of county dem mechanisms might lead to control of state dem parties... This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's the argument against it? Doug An argument against it? You would actually try it yourself if it were really a good idea. Yoshie nah, doug's a journalist, he'd write about it... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
With all deserved respect: No, I'm not the moderator, nor very moderate. I recognize being a left apologist for occupation is not always a bed of roses. I'm sure there are days when you feel like chucking everything and going away for a well-deserved rest, but there is no rest for the weary. You did argue against immediate withdrawal of the US from Iraq as that would destabilize the entire society; that the US was the force the could create the breathing space needed for a democratic government. The US GAO, now known as the Government Accountability Office (recent name change) has issued a report detailing the increased instability and economic decay wrought by the occupation. Care to make your arguments again? Guess not. Just one more thing: Is apologizing for the occupation part of being a great uniter rather than a divider of the working class? Just curious, you know, because my experience with union bureaucracies and leadership was that they were the dividers, like, ummh... Douglas Fraser, who secured his position in the UAW, and I would guess the board of Chrysler, after leading armed goons into the Jefferson Avenue plant to break the wildcat strike of the mostly African-American workers protesting the speed-ups and lack of safety. Now that's unity. _ Now for something completely different, re Deregulation Contortions: Some of you might remember Wendy Gramm, married to free market Phil, from her service for the Enron corporation prior to its collapse, a position she obtained after her service on the government's Commodity Futures Trading Commission, where she advocated and secured deregulation of the trading in energy futures that made Enron what it is today. Hugs to All -Original Message- From: Joel Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jul 20, 2004 1:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Frank op-ed piece Please, before you remark upon others's comments-- I didn't know you were the moderator. I'll let your request for further discussion on another subject go. Clearly you think you know what I think and don't want to waste my time trying to disabuse you of your sagacious superiority. I'll be sure to avoid reading your posts in the future. Take care, Joel Wendland _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/04 3:33 PM Michael Hoover wrote: maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, use available funds to issue policy statements and press releases one after another, show up at public and government meetings, control of county dem mechanisms might lead to control of state dem parties... This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's the argument against it? Doug in no particular order: dem party is thoroughly and hopelessly capitalist, with some exceptions, dem party has dishonorable past, some left folks' preference for 'resistance' and 'struggle', would be too hard to accomplish (not to mention, really boring), inevitable/inexorable march of socialism, folks misunderstand marx re. 'parliamentary cretinism' and 'executive of modern state as committee for managing common affairs of whole bourgeoisie', incompatible with lifestyle things, better to encourage people to read marx/lenin/whomever and join one of numerous alphabet soup vanguard party comprised of ten and hundred of comrabes, red badge of being 'the opposition', dislike/fear of success, preference for whining instead of winning, activism (at least some of what passes for it) would lose character of surrogacy for psychotherapy...michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
This is not the way to operate here. On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:29:41PM -0400, Joel Wendland wrote: Please, before you remark upon others's comments-- I didn't know you were the moderator. I'll let your request for further discussion on another subject go. Clearly you think you know what I think and don't want to waste my time trying to disabuse you of your sagacious superiority. I'll be sure to avoid reading your posts in the future. Take care, Joel Wendland _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
s.artesian wrote: The US GAO, now known as the Government Accountability Office (recent name change) has issued a report detailing the increased instability and economic decay wrought by the occupation. i read the news about the GAO report also, and i have been listening to arguments (on pen-l and elsewhere) on both sides of the issue of pulling out US troops. by both sides, i mean both sides of rational argument (as opposed to: lets pull the troops out since we may not get re-elected otherwise). i am not sure i am convinced by either side. take the point above, for example. is the increased instability and decay caused by the occupation or the invasion? both were/are perpetrated by the same party but they are a bit different, aren't they? is it possible that the US army/govt is the only group with the money and power to cleanup the mess they created? for instance, if the US govt dumped a shitload of nuclear waste in my backyard, i would want it to clean it up (with oversight by me and a neutral informed party). what would happen if we pull out the troops? would iraqis, rid of an illegal occupying force, unite and form a peaceful and just govt, or at least one that is more just than either saddam's or bremmer/allawi's? or would the country descend into even further chaos? what would happen if we keep the troops? would we, as american taxpayers, be able to influence our govt to use them to undo the massive harm we have caused the people of iraq? or would the troops contribute to further degradation of life in iraq? --ravi
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/04 10:37 PM First, all three million do not exist in the same locality. Secondly, a large number who voted for Nader then now are happily reunited with friends inside the regular Democratic Party. Thirdly, fat chance of getting the national party to change anything, or even state parties. Remember the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party? Fourthly, the Democratic Party is not an industrial union, like the UAW or UMW, and even there and then independent workers organizations had to be, and will have to be again, constructed against the established leadership. Need I continue? no idea who lister responsible for above is but: that 3m don't live in same locality is basic point, that certain left-celebs have signed onto anyone but bush/kerry means only that those left-celebs have done so, reference to miss freedom dem party is msplaced given it was singular attempt rather than across-board - er, nation - one (btw: wouldn't take 3m people, used number bit facetiously), this form of 'entryism' would - by definition - be opposed to established leadership... again, nothing may well come of it... heighten the contradictions man , michael hoover ps: thanks for link to milo reno papers, brief bio was bit helpful, have since stumbled across book about farm holiday assn by a john shover, _cornbelt rebellion: the famers' holiday association'... -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Hoover wrote: This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's the argument against it? Doug in no particular order: dem party is thoroughly and hopelessly capitalist, with some exceptions, dem party has dishonorable past, some left folks' preference for 'resistance' and 'struggle', would be too hard to accomplish (not to mention, really boring), inevitable/inexorable march of socialism, folks misunderstand marx re. 'parliamentary cretinism' and 'executive of modern state as committee for managing common affairs of whole bourgeoisie', incompatible with lifestyle things, better to encourage people to read marx/lenin/whomever and join one of numerous alphabet soup vanguard party comprised of ten and hundred of comrabes, red badge of being 'the opposition', dislike/fear of success, preference for whining instead of winning, activism (at least some of what passes for it) would lose character of surrogacy for psychotherapy...michael hoover So almost all the reasons not to are really weak. You weren't stacking the deck, were you? I've got to disagree with the last - it's less a surrogate for psychotherapy than a symptom in itself. Doug
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
How can anyone believe that keeping troops in the US could possibly help bring social justice? Unfortunately, Kerry will not bring troops home without strong international cover. Otherwise he will be blamed for loosing Iraq. He will have to keep putting more troops in until Jeb takes over. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Perelman wrote: How can anyone believe that keeping troops in the US could possibly help bring social justice? i assume, you meant keeping troops in iraq? --ravi
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
sorry. you are correct. but I would be happy to remove the troops from the US. On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:18:05PM -0400, ravi wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: How can anyone believe that keeping troops in the US could possibly help bring social justice? i assume, you meant keeping troops in iraq? --ravi -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
No, I think he meant what he wrote. Gene ravi wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: How can anyone believe that keeping troops in the US could possibly help bring social justice? i assume, you meant "keeping troops in iraq"? --ravi
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Perelman wrote: How can anyone believe that keeping troops in the US could possibly help bring social justice? i assume, you meant keeping troops in iraq? --ravi or maybe Michael's remembering the old anarchist slogan US out of North America! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
I'd be *very* careful how one went about this. It feels like entryism, and the experience of the (UK) Labour Party in the 1980s suggests that the 'mainstream' Dems would react to it very badly indeed (by which I mean that this, if it didn't work, would be the *end* of friendly relationships between the US Left (S.A.I.I) and the Democratic Party. There are lots of people in the UK Labour party who were good friends once but who still don't speak to each other, because of things that happened with Militant during the 80s. dd Michael Hoover wrote: This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's the argument against it? Doug in
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
sorry. you are correct. but I would be happy to remove the troops from the US. Or bring all the troops home here and re-train them into an army of fitness instructors -- sorely needed in the fattest nation in the world. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Daniel Davies wrote: I'd be *very* careful how one went about this. It feels like entryism, and the experience of the (UK) Labour Party in the 1980s suggests that the 'mainstream' Dems would react to it very badly indeed (by which I mean that this, if it didn't work, would be the *end* of friendly relationships between the US Left (S.A.I.I) and the Democratic Party. There are lots of people in the UK Labour party who were good friends once but who still don't speak to each other, because of things that happened with Militant during the 80s. We're not talking about people like Militant I hope. Our Trots wouldn't touch the DP with a 10-ft pole. (On this question, even some ex-Trots carry on the tradition, suggesting that membership is that community is a lot like the Party of the Right, for life at least.) We're talking about Nader voters, Greens, liberal Dems, etc. Of course that they lack the discipline of Militant they'll get chewed up quickly by the DP machinery. Tom Frank (whose book is selling 10,000 copies a week) says that the Dems he now meets in DC say there is no working class, and the target demographic is suburban professionals. Doug
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Doug writes: Tom Frank (whose book is selling 10,000 copies a week) says that the Dems he now meets in DC say there is no working class, and the target demographic is suburban professionals. He is quite critical of the Democratic Leadership Council for promoting this attitude. In fact, in the article in Sunday's L.A. TIMES, one of his criticisms was that the DLC had replaced class issues (which he called something else) with issues such as abortion rights, etc. That doesn't have to say that the latter are wrong to push for, but rather that the DLC is wrong to go suburban and give the finger to the working class and the poor. jim devine
NEW Thomas Frank op-ed piece
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-frank18jul18,1,3286333.story How the Left Lost Its Heart Now, the working class has no true champion By Thomas Frank Thomas Frank is editor of the Baffler magazine and author of What's the Matter With Kansas? This article was adapted from that book by arrangement with Metropolitan Books, an imprint of Henry Holt a July 18, 2004 WASHINGTON - That our politics have been shifting rightward for more than 30 years is a generally acknowledged fact of American life. That this movement has largely been brought about by working-class voters whose lives have been materially worsened by the conservative policies they have supported is less commented upon. And yet the trend is apparent, from the hard hats of the 1960s to the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s to today's mad-as-hell red states. You can see the paradox firsthand on nearly any Main Street in Middle America, where going out of business signs stand side by side with placards supporting George W. Bush. I chose to observe the phenomenon by going back to my home state of Kansas, a place that has been particularly ill served by the conservative policies of privatization, deregulation and deunionization - and that has reacted to its worsening situation by becoming more conservative still. Indeed, Kansas is today the site of a ferocious struggle within the Republican Party, a fight pitting affluent moderate Republicans against conservatives from working-class districts and down-market churches. And it's hard not to feel some affection for the conservative faction, even as I deplore its political views. After all, these are the people that liberalism is supposed to speak to: the hard-luck farmers, the bitter factory workers, the outsiders, the disenfranchised, the disreputable. Although Kansas voters have chosen self-destructive policies, it is clear that liberalism deserves a large part of the blame for the backlash phenomenon. Liberalism may not be the monstrous, all-powerful conspiracy that conservatives make it out to be, but its failings are clear nonetheless. Somewhere in the last four decades liberalism ceased to be relevant to huge portions of its traditional constituency, and liberalism just as surely lost places like Wichita and Shawnee as much as conservatism won them over. This is due partly, I think, to the Democratic Party's more-or-less official response to its waning fortunes. The Democratic Leadership Council, the organization that produced such figures as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman and Terry McAuliffe, has long been pushing the party to forget blue-collar voters and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues. The larger interests that the DLC wants desperately to court are corporations, capable of generating campaign contributions far outweighing anything raised by organized labor. The way to collect the votes and - more important - the money of these coveted constituencies, New Democrats think, is to stand rock-solid on, say, the pro-choice position while making endless concessions on economic issues, on welfare, NAFTA, Social Security, labor law, privatization, deregulation and the rest of it. Such Democrats explicitly rule out what they deride as class warfare and take great pains to emphasize their friendliness to business interests. Like the conservatives, they take economic issues off the table. As for the working-class voters who were until recently the party's very backbone, the DLC figures they will have nowhere else to go; Democrats will always be marginally better on bread-and-butter economic issues than Republicans. Besides, what politician in this success-worshiping country really wants to be the voice of poor people? Where's the soft money in that? This is, in drastic miniature, the criminally stupid strategy that has dominated Democratic thinking off and on ever since the New Politics days of the early '70s. Over the years it has enjoyed a few successes, but, as political writer E.J. Dionne has pointed out, the larger result was that both parties have become vehicles for upper-middle-class interests and the old class-based language of the left quickly disappeared from the universe of the respectable. The Republicans, meanwhile, were industriously fabricating their own class-based language of the right, and while they made their populist appeal to blue-collar voters, Democrats were giving those same voters - their traditional base - the big brushoff, ousting their representatives from positions within the party and consigning their issues, with a laugh and a sneer, to the dustbin of history. A more ruinous strategy for Democrats would be difficult to invent. And the ruination just keeps on coming. Curiously, though, Democrats of the DLC variety aren't worried. They seem to look forward to a day when their party really is what David Brooks and Ann
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Perelman wrote: sorry. you are correct. but I would be happy to remove the troops from the US. On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:18:05PM -0400, ravi wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: How can anyone believe that keeping troops in the US could possibly help bring social justice? what then of US responsibility to clean up the mess we created? it seems to me that many (not necessarily on pen-l) who call for the return of the troops are primarily motivated by their concern for the safety of american soldiers. many of these same people i am sure supported the invasion that put these soldiers in iraq! why not first the call: US corporations out of iraq? --ravi
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
ravi writes: what then of US responsibility to clean up the mess we created? shouldn't it be what then of the US power elite's responsibility to clean up the mess they created? Do you think that US troops are the best tool for cleaning the mess they were hired to create? It seems that they are serving the US corporations, so if you're calling for US corporations out of Iraq, you're also calling for their servants to leave. As some predecessor of Mohammed said, no man can serve two masters. Can US troops serve their current masters _and_ do good things? --- BTW, did you see that the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings. They say the prisoners - handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security centre, in the city's south-western suburbs. They say Dr Allawi told onlookers the victims had each killed as many as 50 Iraqis and they deserved worse than death. The Prime Minister's office has denied the entirety of the witness accounts in a written statement to the Herald, saying Dr Allawi had never visited the centre and he did not carry a gun. But the informants told the Herald that Dr Allawi shot each young man in the head as about a dozen Iraqi policemen and four Americans from the Prime Minister's personal security team watched in stunned silence. goodbye to the old Saddam, hello to the new? a newer, better, Saddam, _our_ SOB. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine what then of US responsibility to clean up the mess we created? it seems to me that many (not necessarily on pen-l) who call for the return of the troops are primarily motivated by their concern for the safety of american soldiers. many of these same people i am sure supported the invasion that put these soldiers in iraq! why not first the call: US corporations out of iraq? --ravi
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
what then of US responsibility to clean up the mess we created? it seems to me that many (not necessarily on pen-l) who call for the return of the troops are primarily motivated by their concern for the safety of american soldiers. many of these same people i am sure supported the invasion that put these soldiers in iraq! why not first the call: US corporations out of iraq? --ravi I support these sentiments. The rank narcissism, parochialism, single-issues, myopia and outright opportunism on the part of some who call themselves part of the left in America is particularly odious. For example, we see MoveOn.org contrasting the Kerry and Bush military records not only to show Bush as a chicken hawk and hypocrite for supporting a war he refused to fight in, but also purporting to show that Kerry, despite some reservations about the war, did his duty and 'served'. No, Bush has blood on his hands for supporting the war while refusing to go, while Kerry has blood on his hands (as did all veterans who directly or indirectly participated in the Vietnam War--including me) for having reservations about it but going anyway--there was not one thing noble or worthy about the Vietnam War, an outright genocidal and imperialist war. We see some of the petit-bourgeois middle-class white feminists supporting Kerry but having nothing to say about his very active membership in an outright misogynistic, anti-Semitic, racist and proto-fascist Satanic cult--Skull and Bones, of which Bush is also a fellow member. We see some, as in previous anti-War movements before, who are far more anti-Draft(with particular focus on their own skins) than anti-War or anti-Imperialism or even anti-Capitalism. Jim C.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
In fairness, Kerry has never denied having blood on his hands and has done more than most (indeed, has built his political career on it) to bring the facts about what US soldiers did in Vietnam into the public eye. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Craven, Jim Sent: 21 July 2004 02:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece No, Bush has blood on his hands for supporting the war while refusing to go, while Kerry has blood on his hands (as did all veterans who directly or indirectly participated in the Vietnam War--including me) for having reservations about it but going anyway-
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
The US establishment could do a lot more good by leaving Iraq, admitting that they were wrong, that the press screwed up, and warning that the people should be more attentive to the truth next time. On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:37:03PM -0400, ravi wrote: what then of US responsibility to clean up the mess we created? it seems to me that many (not necessarily on pen-l) who call for the return of the troops are primarily motivated by their concern for the safety of american soldiers. many of these same people i am sure supported the invasion that put these soldiers in iraq! why not first the call: US corporations out of iraq? --ravi -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Devine, James wrote: ravi writes: what then of US responsibility to clean up the mess we created? shouldn't it be what then of the US power elite's responsibility to clean up the mess they created? for an iraqi is there a difference? or even for us? 30-50% of the taxes i pay go towards funding american adventures in other countries and the further excesses of client states like israel. am i not complicit in the suffering of iraqis and palestinians and east timorese? Do you think that US troops are the best tool for cleaning the mess they were hired to create? i don't know. that's why i am trying to follow this debate. but often all i hear is dismissal without justification of the opposing position. perhaps the reasons are obvious? It seems that they are serving the US corporations, so if you're calling for US corporations out of Iraq, you're also calling for their servants to leave. i dont know about the last part. perhaps US troops as part of a multinational force could help ensure peace. that might be a naive hope. the corporations (hallibortun, bechtel, etc) are by their very nature a corrupting and degenerate influence. BTW, did you see that the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government... indeed i read about this, and it only adds to my doubt. i am not very knowledgeable about iraq but is it not possible that the thugs who will rush in to fill the void left by a suddenly departed US army, would be worse? i remember reading pieces about east timor, rwanda, and elsewhere, of the horrors that ensued when any provisional authority pulled out (in those cases these authorities were a bit more legitimate, such as the UN). isnt it important not to forget that their thugs are as bad as ours? only, we can try to control our thugs but they cannot control theirs or ours. --ravi
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Ravi, with all due respect, Iif the US really wanted to make things better the money that they spend now could buy many more Islamic soldiers, without the stigma of US control. If the US left Iraqis decide the fate of their gov't, it would probably be anti-American and theocratic. Engels once said that the worst time for a bad government is when it first tries to do good. Doing good in this case will not be easy, but the military is too blunt an object to acomplish anything good. But the US is not interested in doing good. It wants to avoid humiliation. One of the generals said that the US can take its humiliation now or later. It has to decide how much humiliation it wants. But then, maybe with enough money and lives, the US can establish an ARENA-like party that will do its bidding, allowing the US to sneak away. I doubt it, though. On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:37:15PM -0400, ravi wrote: Devine, James wrote: ravi writes: what then of US responsibility to clean up the mess we created? shouldn't it be what then of the US power elite's responsibility to clean up the mess they created? for an iraqi is there a difference? or even for us? 30-50% of the taxes i pay go towards funding american adventures in other countries and the further excesses of client states like israel. am i not complicit in the suffering of iraqis and palestinians and east timorese? Do you think that US troops are the best tool for cleaning the mess they were hired to create? i don't know. that's why i am trying to follow this debate. but often all i hear is dismissal without justification of the opposing position. perhaps the reasons are obvious? It seems that they are serving the US corporations, so if you're calling for US corporations out of Iraq, you're also calling for their servants to leave. i dont know about the last part. perhaps US troops as part of a multinational force could help ensure peace. that might be a naive hope. the corporations (hallibortun, bechtel, etc) are by their very nature a corrupting and degenerate influence. BTW, did you see that the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government... indeed i read about this, and it only adds to my doubt. i am not very knowledgeable about iraq but is it not possible that the thugs who will rush in to fill the void left by a suddenly departed US army, would be worse? i remember reading pieces about east timor, rwanda, and elsewhere, of the horrors that ensued when any provisional authority pulled out (in those cases these authorities were a bit more legitimate, such as the UN). isnt it important not to forget that their thugs are as bad as ours? only, we can try to control our thugs but they cannot control theirs or ours. --ravi -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
In fairness, Kerry has never denied having blood on his hands and has done more than most (indeed, has built his political career on it) to bring the facts about what US soldiers did in Vietnam into the public eye. dd Response Jim C: Then why the ads celebrating his Vietnam service? Why the ads noting that he chose to serve his country by going to Vietnam? Why the celebrations of his medals that many sought to throw away out of shame when they came home--myself included? Why was he in VVAW only on the periphery breaking with the organization after a relatively short time in it? Why the references to how many times he was wounded and no reference to how many he wounded and killed? Why the continual reference to honorable service in Vietnam and how do you honorably serve in an imperialist and genocidal war? And here we got a bunch of fucking liberals on Air America, who themselves never served in the military, now celebrating Kerry's military service and attacking Bush for being a chickenhawk (which he was) but tacitly promoting the justness and correctness--and even patriotism of Kerry having served in Vietnam. You cannot have it both ways: the anti-War movement was correct yet we must honor those who served in Vietnam. Bullshit. If the anti-War movement was correct, then we should honor those who refused to serve (for whatever reason) with the exception of those chickenhawks who actively supported the War while ducking out of it. Again the right-wing is driving the agenda and the liberals are just reacting to it tryiing to win debating points. That asshole David Horowitz (who in my opinion was never a real leftist ever), who is now a close advisor to Bush. came up with a twist on Von Clausewitz: Politics is war by other means instead of war is the continuation of politics by other means is correct about one thing when he says that the point is winning and crushing/exterminating the hard-core opposition and not debating or winning in terms of debating points. Jim C.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/18/04 7:51 PM I don't think that the League of Pissed Off Voters, aka the League of Independent Voters, goes anywhere by itself, but seen as a part of a larger phenomenon, it's interesting. On one hand, it's an indication of how embarrassing it has become to make a straightforward argument for John Kerry or the Democratic Party in general, among thinking young persons especially, so the Democratic operatives have to come up with a face-saving cover that lets them believe that they are still independent, albeit they will be voting and working for John Kerry. Yoshie will rogers said something to effect that he wasn't a member of any party, he was a democrat... maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, use available funds to issue policy statements and press releases one after another, show up at public and government meetings, control of county dem mechanisms might lead to control of state dem parties... maybe nothing would happen, but maybe there would be crisis of hegemony in dem party, existing national/state dem 'leaders' might have to react, maybe they'd play their hand and decide to decertify local executive councils run by leftists/ progressives, so dem party could become something different from what it is today or it might be be destroyed, either outcome would be ok...michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Hoover wrote: maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, use available funds to issue policy statements and press releases one after another, show up at public and government meetings, control of county dem mechanisms might lead to control of state dem parties... This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's the argument against it? Doug
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Hoover: will rogers said something to effect that he wasn't a member of any party, he was a democrat... when I quoted this, I was corrected: he wasn't a member of any _organized_ party. maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, all of them? then who's left? jd
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/04 3:52 PM Michael Hoover: will rogers said something to effect that he wasn't a member of any party, he was a democrat... when I quoted this, I was corrected: he wasn't a member of any _organized_ party. i stand (actually, i'm sitting) corrected... maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, all of them? then who's left? jd who's/whose left now... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Michael Hoover wrote: maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, use available funds to issue policy statements and press releases one after another, show up at public and government meetings, control of county dem mechanisms might lead to control of state dem parties... This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's the argument against it? Doug An argument against it? You would actually try it yourself if it were really a good idea. Yoshie
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
First, all three million do not exist in the same locality. Secondly, a large number who voted for Nader then now are happily reunited with friends inside the regular Democratic Party. Thirdly, fat chance of getting the national party to change anything, or even state parties. Remember the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party? Fourthly, the Democratic Party is not an industrial union, like the UAW or UMW, and even there and then independent workers organizations had to be, and will have to be again, constructed against the established leadership. Need I continue? - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Frank op-ed piece Michael Hoover wrote: maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, use available funds to issue policy statements and press releases one after another, show up at public and government meetings, control of county dem mechanisms might lead to control of state dem parties... This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's the argument against it? Doug An argument against it? You would actually try it yourself if it were really a good idea. Yoshie
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
sartesian wrote: an industrial union, like the UAW or UMW, and even there and then independent workers organizations had to be, and will have to be again, constructed against the established leadership. Ah yes. More splits in the working class. Joel Wendland _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Ah, Mr. Wendland, you return. Please, before you remark upon others's comments-- please review your opposition to immediate US withdrawal from Iraq. Explain the accelerating instability brought on by the US presence. Or is that too divisive for you in your role as the sage of social democracy? - Original Message - From: Joel Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Frank op-ed piece sartesian wrote: an industrial union, like the UAW or UMW, and even there and then independent workers organizations had to be, and will have to be again, constructed against the established leadership. Ah yes. More splits in the working class. Joel Wendland _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
There are Democrats, and there are shamefaced Democrats, and the League of Pissed Off Voters is set up to appeal to the latter. When you look at their website http://indyvoter.org/, it uses two names alternately: the League of Pissed Off Voters and the League of Independent Voters. The League of Pissed Off Voters just had its national convention http://indyvoter.org/article.php?id=72 at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. From a friend of mine who ran into the League's national organizers at a bar tonight, I hear that about 250 attended the convention, but only 15 from Columbus itself. 15 is 15 too many. Yoshie will plead ignorance re. lopov, saw name on poster, chuckled, thought to myself kinda funny, even thought 'group' might be joke, thought up by someone/small group with no serious intention of having legs for mass outreach, so my initial comments about 'rightous name' and 'growing group' were supposed to be irony (which often travels poorly in cyberspace)... so 250 people had 'national convention', doesn't matter who they are, what they stand for, what their name is, where they've been or where they're going, group is a joke (if not in manner of my immediate reaction to name lopov)... fwiw: league rep at ann arbor forum yesterday argued for voting for anybody but kerry or bush, guess she's out of step with her comrades re. dem candidate... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
At 9:57 AM -0400 7/18/04, Michael Hoover wrote: will plead ignorance re. lopov, saw name on poster, chuckled, thought to myself kinda funny, even thought 'group' might be joke, thought up by someone/small group with no serious intention of having legs for mass outreach, so my initial comments about 'rightous name' and 'growing group' were supposed to be irony (which often travels poorly in cyberspace)... I don't think that the League of Pissed Off Voters, aka the League of Independent Voters, goes anywhere by itself, but seen as a part of a larger phenomenon, it's interesting. On one hand, it's an indication of how embarrassing it has become to make a straightforward argument for John Kerry or the Democratic Party in general, among thinking young persons especially, so the Democratic operatives have to come up with a face-saving cover that lets them believe that they are still independent, albeit they will be voting and working for John Kerry. On the other hand, the League, MoveOn, and thousands of others like it (e.g., http://www.punkvoter.com/) have been very successful at re-creating the Democratic Party hegemony over not just liberals but also a sizable segment of leftists. The key tactic for them, whose faces are sunny and cheery, is to focus on opposing George W. Bush; not to mention John Kerry, because he is, well, unmentionable; and to say a kind word or two about some nice Green Party candidates in local elections. Nasty work is done by Democratic Party lawyers and politicians doing all they can to keep Nader and other Greens off the ballots and (if they still manage to get on the ballots) to make them win as few votes as possible. At 9:57 AM -0400 7/18/04, Michael Hoover wrote: fwiw: league rep at ann arbor forum yesterday argued for voting for anybody but kerry or bush, guess she's out of step with her comrades re. dem candidate... michael hoover I believe so, but what's her name? Perhaps, she'll join something more interesting some day. At 2:32 PM -0700 7/18/04, Craven, Jim wrote: Response Jim C: The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. (Josef Stalin) In a nation like the USA, the saying may be, The people who pay for politicians' golden parachutes decide everything. Shane Mage and Doug Henwood say that the ruling class appear to have dumped George W. Bush, and I agree with them. Democratic Party front groups want us to think that the November election will be a referendum on Bush, but the ruling class know that it will be a referendum on Kerry. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Dumped George Bush? Not hardly. Put 200 million into his campaign and he hasn't, and they haven't, started yet. Kerry? That's call hedging the position. You don't dump somebody by place a 200 million dollar bet. Dump Bush Oh no, they love this love-child of Ronald Reagan, and I do mean THEY, collective, plural, class. He embodies everything they hold to be self-evident, those natural virtues -- venality, vindictiveness, viciousness. - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Frank op-ed piece Shane Mage and Doug Henwood say that the ruling class appear to have dumped George W. Bush, and I agree with them. Democratic Party front groups want us to think that the November election will be a referendum on Bush, but the ruling class know that it will be a referendum on Kerry.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
At 8:05 PM -0700 7/18/04, sartesian wrote: Dumped George Bush? Not hardly. Put 200 million into his campaign and he hasn't, and they haven't, started yet. Kerry? That's call hedging the position. You don't dump somebody by place a 200 million dollar bet. Dump Bush Oh no, they love this love-child of Ronald Reagan, and I do mean THEY, collective, plural, class. He embodies everything they hold to be self-evident, those natural virtues -- venality, vindictiveness, viciousness. There will be a rump faction that continues to support Bush, but the rest have probably already made the decision that Bush does more harm than good for them. I think that $200 million is not a particularly large sum for the ruling class. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Rump? Not hardly. In 2000 corporate contributions to the GOP and Bush exceeded the amount to Dems by 2 to 1. That rate continued, at least through 2003. As for the $200 million being a modest sum-- it exceeds by 25%, if memory serves me, the previous record for funds raised, the previous record belonging also to the current record holder, George W. Bush. That's a mighty big rump. - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Frank op-ed piece At 8:05 PM -0700 7/18/04, sartesian wrote: Dumped George Bush? Not hardly. Put 200 million into his campaign and he hasn't, and they haven't, started yet. Kerry? That's call hedging the position. You don't dump somebody by place a 200 million dollar bet. Dump Bush Oh no, they love this love-child of Ronald Reagan, and I do mean THEY, collective, plural, class. He embodies everything they hold to be self-evident, those natural virtues -- venality, vindictiveness, viciousness. There will be a rump faction that continues to support Bush, but the rest have probably already made the decision that Bush does more harm than good for them. I think that $200 million is not a particularly large sum for the ruling class. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/04 2:45 PM michael hoover (reporting from birkenstock, i mean ann arbor, where forum on third parties this weekend includes representative of the righteously named - and no doubt - growing group, league of pissed off voters) Isn't that another front group for the Democrats? Yoshie aren't they all, actually, i have it on good word that dems are front group for reps... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Farm Holiday Associationn (was Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/04 3:20 PM Hmm, well I think we can rule out shark attacks as a factor in the decline of the Kansas left. The American heartland remains shrouded in mystery. Carl subsitute tornadoes or some other 'act of god' for which folks hold politicians accountable... re. farmbelt left, was doing some reading on pre-american revolution/colonial era violence and came across mention of 1930s group/movement with which i'm unfamiliar: farm holiday association... apparently emerged out of iowa and spread to several other states, violent direct action was principal feature, farmers defied legal processes, blocked highways, dumped milk from trucks, forcibly halted farm disclosures, assaulted public officials,,, 'leader' was guy named milo reno, henry wallace apparently compared movement to that of of boston tea party, one branch called themselves 'modern 76ers'... any listers with any info... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Farm Holiday Associationn (was Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece)
Papers of Milo Reno available at: http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/spec-coll/MSC/ToMsc100/MsC44/msc44.html
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/04 2:45 PM michael hoover (reporting from birkenstock, i mean ann arbor, where forum on third parties this weekend includes representative of the righteously named - and no doubt - growing group, league of pissed off voters) Isn't that another front group for the Democrats? Yoshie aren't they all, actually, i have it on good word that dems are front group for reps... michael hoover There are Democrats, and there are shamefaced Democrats, and the League of Pissed Off Voters is set up to appeal to the latter. When you look at their website http://indyvoter.org/, it uses two names alternately: the League of Pissed Off Voters and the League of Independent Voters. The League of Pissed Off Voters just had its national convention http://indyvoter.org/article.php?id=72 at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. From a friend of mine who ran into the League's national organizers at a bar tonight, I hear that about 250 attended the convention, but only 15 from Columbus itself. 15 is 15 too many. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Thomas Frank op-ed piece
(Thomas Frank's new book What's Wrong With Kansas argues implicitly that the Democrats lose elections because they are identified with the wrong side of the culture wars. This is the same sort of position that Michael Moore argued in the Nation Magazine in 1997 and that Richard Rorty put forward in Achieving Our Country. You get a more strident version of this in Todd Gitlin's The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America Is Wracked by Culture Wars. Moving directly into the enemy's camp, you get Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society and Jim Sleeper's Liberal Racism: How Fixating on Race Subverts the American Dream. Somehow, this kind of economism that panders to white workers has been associated with Marxism in some circles. Frank himself would probably describe himself as a Marxist, but not on the Charlie Rose show--I don't imagine. In any case, this has little to do with the outlook of Lenin who urged that socialists act as a tribune of the people.) NY Times, July 16, 2004 OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Failure Is Not an Option, It's Mandatory By THOMAS FRANK WASHINGTON For three days this week the nation was transfixed by the spectacle of the United States Senate, in all its august majesty, doing precisely the opposite of statesmanlike deliberation. Instead, it was debating the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would not only have discriminated against a large group of citizens, but also was doomed to defeat from the get-go. Everyone knew this harebrained notion would never draw the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment, and yet here were all these conservatives lining up to speak for it, wasting day after day with their meandering remarks about culture while more important business went unattended. What explains this folly? Not simple bigotry, as some pundits declared, or even simple politics. While it is true that the amendment was a classic election-year ploy, it owes its power as much to a peculiar narrative of class hostility as it does to homophobia or ideology. And in this narrative, success comes by losing. For more than three decades, the Republican Party has relied on the culture war to rescue their chances every four years, from Richard Nixon's campaign against the liberal news media to George H. W. Bush's campaign against the liberal flag-burners. In this culture war, the real divide is between regular people and an endlessly scheming liberal elite. This strategy allows them to depict themselves as friends of the common people even as they gut workplace safety rules and lay plans to turn Social Security over to Wall Street. Most important, it has allowed Republicans to speak the language of populism. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/opinion/16FRAN.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Frank's new book What's Wrong With Kansas argues implicitly that the Democrats lose elections because they are identified with the wrong side of the culture wars. This is the same sort of position that Michael Moore argued in the Nation Magazine in 1997 and that Richard Rorty put forward in Achieving Our Country. You get a more strident version of this in Todd Gitlin's The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America Is Wracked by Culture Wars. Moving directly into the enemy's camp, you get Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society and Jim Sleeper's Liberal Racism: How Fixating on Race Subverts the American Dream. Somehow, this kind of economism that panders to white workers has been associated with Marxism in some circles. Frank himself would probably describe himself as a Marxist, but not on the Charlie Rose show--I don't imagine. In any case, this has little to do with the outlook of Lenin who urged that socialists act as a tribune of the people.) I think _What the Matter With Kansas?_ is a great book, but Frank doesn't really provide any explanation for conservatives' amazing, Lamont Cranston-style ability to cloud men's minds and substitute preposterous cultural issues for economic concerns that have life-and-death significance. Why *are* so many Americans so easily gulled, so mulish, so spiteful, so effing perverse? I was born in this country and have lived here for over a half century, but the basic weirdness of this place never fails to astonish me. BTW, just heard that Martha Stewart got a sentence (a phrase, really) of just five months. Guess she'll be out in time to offer decorating tips for Christmas. Carl _ MSN 9 Dial-up Internet Access helps fight spam and pop-ups now 2 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Carl Remick wrote: I think _What the Matter With Kansas?_ is a great book, but Frank doesn't really provide any explanation for conservatives' amazing, Lamont Cranston-style ability to cloud men's minds and substitute preposterous cultural issues for economic concerns that have life-and-death significance. Why *are* so many Americans so easily gulled, so mulish, so spiteful, so effing perverse? Maybe because sex, race, and religion aren't distractions from the real issues, but things that people take really really seriously? Doug
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Carl says: From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Frank's new book What's Wrong With Kansas argues implicitly that the Democrats lose elections because they are identified with the wrong side of the culture wars. This is the same sort of position that Michael Moore argued in the Nation Magazine in 1997 and that Richard Rorty put forward in Achieving Our Country. You get a more strident version of this in Todd Gitlin's The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America Is Wracked by Culture Wars. Moving directly into the enemy's camp, you get Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society and Jim Sleeper's Liberal Racism: How Fixating on Race Subverts the American Dream. Somehow, this kind of economism that panders to white workers has been associated with Marxism in some circles. Frank himself would probably describe himself as a Marxist, but not on the Charlie Rose show--I don't imagine. In any case, this has little to do with the outlook of Lenin who urged that socialists act as a tribune of the people.) I think _What the Matter With Kansas?_ is a great book, but Frank doesn't really provide any explanation for conservatives' amazing, Lamont Cranston-style ability to cloud men's minds and substitute preposterous cultural issues for economic concerns that have life-and-death significance. Why *are* so many Americans so easily gulled, so mulish, so spiteful, so effing perverse? I was born in this country and have lived here for over a half century, but the basic weirdness of this place never fails to astonish me. In my opinion, mulish, spiteful, and perverse reactionaries are a great boon -- not to the Republican but the Democratic Party, which would lose even more of its post-60s constituencies (organized labor + Blacks + social liberals + leftists who fall for a self-fulfilling prophesy) if they did not exist, which is the conclusion that I got from the Thomas Frank op-ed piece: blockquote Of course, as everyone pointed out, the whole enterprise [the Federal Marriage Amendment] was doomed to failure from the start. It didn't have to be that way; conservatives could have chosen any number of more promising avenues to challenge or limit the Massachusetts ruling. Instead they went with a constitutional amendment, the one method where failure was absolutely guaranteed - along with front-page coverage Then again, what culture war offensive isn't doomed to failure from the start? Indeed, the inevitability of defeat seems to be a critical element of the melodrama, on issues from school prayer to evolution and even abortion. Failure on the cultural front serves to magnify the outrage felt by conservative true believers; it mobilizes the base. Failure sharpens the distinctions between conservatives and liberals. Failure allows for endless grandstanding without any real-world consequences that might upset more moderate Republicans or the party's all-important corporate wing. You might even say that grand and garish defeat - especially if accompanied by the ridicule of the sophisticated - is the culture warrior's very object. The issue is all-important; the issue is incapable of being won. Only when the battle is defined this way can it achieve the desired results, have its magical polarizing effect. Only with a proposed constitutional amendment could the legalistic, cavilling Democrats be counted on to vote no, and only with an offensive so blunt and so sweeping could the universal hostility of the press be secured. (Failure Is Not an Option, It's Mandatory, emNew York Times/em, a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/opinion/16FRAN.html;July 16, 2004/a)/blockquote There is one point in the Culture War that leftists, unlike liberals, might want to steal from conservatives: gun control. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
(Thomas Frank's new book What's Wrong With Kansas argues implicitly that the Democrats lose elections because they are identified with the wrong side of the culture wars. ... Frank himself would probably describe himself as a Marxist, but not on the Charlie Rose show...) I heard part of Terry Gross' interview with him on NPR's Fresh Air. He'd probably describe himself as a social democrat (except that that term doesn't resonate in a US context). But I don't think labels are very useful. Political categories and who fits in them are pretty fluid these days. Frank himself describes himself as an ex-Reaganite. With a more radical mass movement in action, people like Frank and others who Louis doesn't like, may change their spots. (Of course, we shouldn't give the credit to _them_ if they do. It's the movement that deserves the credit.) With Yoshie, I think the most interesting part of Frank's analysis is that the GOPsters are using the Kulturkampf (anti-gay, anti-drugs, etc.) as a way to institute pro-business policies and in practice don't win many of the KK battles. However, I think that they win more battles than he thinks. The war on drugs doesn't actually stamp out drugs, but it pushes US (and world) society in a more authoritarian direction. The war on Iraq is partly a matter of this KK: we are defending the freedom of the West against the ragheads and evildoers with their alien and barbaric culture at the same time it justifies more Ashcroftism. The war hasn't been won, but it's served a lot of business needs (if only short-term ones). Finally, Frank plays down the fact that the KKers may actually win the war against abortion rights. Though being perpetual losers (and therefore being persecuted by the amorphous and invisible but still powerful Liberal elite) may energize the KK base, as Frank argues, they have to win now and then. Otherwise, they may be demoralized (like the left). jd
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
That's only half of Frank's argument. I've been blazing through the book this week. It's a lot of fun to read. Frank also says Clintonesque center-hugging on economics -- free trade, labor rights, privatization, etc. -- causes the culturally- conservative worker's decision to hinge solely on God, guns, and gays. I haven't finished the book yet. So far Frank's argument begs the question of why we don't see a politics that is culturally conservative and economically progressive, like the old populists 100 years ago. mbs (Thomas Frank's new book What's Wrong With Kansas argues implicitly that the Democrats lose elections because they are identified with the wrong side of the culture wars. This is the same sort of position that Michael Moore argued in the Nation Magazine in 1997 and that Richard Rorty put forward in Achieving Our Country. You get a more strident version of this in Todd Gitlin's The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America Is Wracked by Culture Wars. Moving directly into the enemy's camp, you get Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society and Jim Sleeper's Liberal Racism: How Fixating on Race Subverts the American Dream. Somehow, this kind of economism that panders to white workers has been associated with Marxism in some circles. Frank himself would probably describe himself as a Marxist, but not on the Charlie Rose show--I don't imagine. In any case, this has little to do with the outlook of Lenin who urged that socialists act as a tribune of the people.) NY Times, July 16, 2004 OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Failure Is Not an Option, It's Mandatory By THOMAS FRANK
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Max B. Sawicky wrote: I haven't finished the book yet. So far Frank's argument begs the question of why we don't see a politics that is culturally conservative and economically progressive, like the old populists 100 years ago. Culturally conservative and economically progressive? That sounds like Ralph Nader. Camejo, of course, is another matter entirely... -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
mbs writes: Frank also says Clintonesque center-hugging on economics -- free trade, labor rights, privatization, etc. -- causes the culturally- conservative worker's decision to hinge solely on God, guns, and gays. both the GOPsters and the Dems these days are pushing different versions of neoliberalism, involving privatization, etc. This undermines the traditions that the Kulturkampfers are supposedly defending, but it creates a larger popular base for the culture war itself. Similar, cutbacks of education and the like in the Middle East have encouraged the existence of a large base for extremist Islamists, who provide a lot of the services (such as madrassas) that the neoliberal state has dropped or is dropping. jd
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Max wrote: Frank also says Clintonesque center-hugging on economics -- free trade, labor rights, privatization, etc. -- causes the culturally- conservative worker's decision to hinge solely on God, guns, and gays. That's a good point. Since the top Democrats are so economically neoliberal that the Republicans have nothing to talk about except culture to distinguish themselves from the Democrats. I haven't finished the book yet. So far Frank's argument begs the question of why we don't see politics that is culturally conservative and economically progressive, like the old populists 100 years ago. Capitalism has already changed social relations to the point where there is no going back. Even many Republicans who want to ban gay marriage say they support civil union and/or non-discrimination against gay men and lesbians, just like Kerry and Edwards! -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/04 10:13 AM (Thomas Frank's new book What's Wrong With Kansas argues implicitly that the Democrats lose elections because they are identified with the wrong side of the culture wars. nah, mainstream poli sci guys christopher achen and larry bartels have much better explanation, they've convincingly shown impact of droughts, flu, shark attacks, etc. on electoral responses, for example, 1916 shark attacks (that inspired peter benchley's novel 'jaws') along new jersey beaches resulted in 10% decline from 1912 in beach town votes for woodrow wilson... michael hoover (reporting from birkenstock, i mean ann arbor, where forum on third parties this weekend includes representative of the righteously named - and no doubt - growing group, league of pissed off voters) -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
L: Nader's only about 30 percent of the way there, though he's trying hard. The template is absolutely anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, etc. Nader appears at best lukewarm or agnostic in dimensions like these from a cultural-conservative standpoint. He's still in granola-land. JD: I think Clinton himself was good at coopting and discombobulating the GOP on the culture side. Kerry seems not so nimble, nor so inclined Y: The change you allude to seems likely to take way too long a time. nb Cultural conservative I think is very unsatisfactory terminology in this context, but I don't have any better at the moment. -mbs Culturally conservative and economically progressive? That sounds like Ralph Nader. Camejo, of course, is another matter entirely...
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
michael hoover (reporting from birkenstock, i mean ann arbor, where forum on third parties this weekend includes representative of the righteously named - and no doubt - growing group, league of pissed off voters) Isn't that another front group for the Democrats? -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Off List Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Hi Michael, Funny, though I only lived in Ann Arbor 1955-59, it is still the only spot on the map reference to which gives me a slight jab of something like homesickness! I haven't been back there since the New University Conference there in the summer of 1970. (And already it had changed almost beyond recognition from the Ann Arbor of the early 1960s.) Carrol
