>>has problems obtaining food. But the better-
>>off are not a thin 'aristocracy' either. And
>>there will no left -- social-democratic or
>>revolutionary -- without them.
Louis, holding forth:
>
>This is the central problem of world politics. The working-class of the
imperialist nations are self-satisfied because they enjoy the privileges
accrued from the plunder of third-world nations. When your neighbor goes to
the Sunoco station to fill up his SUV, there is a power relation implied in
that transaction. The reason there is a CIA is to make sure that the power
relations persist so that the ruling class of the US will retain a social
base among the well-paid trade unionists, what some people call "Reagan
Democrats.">
Translation: the U.S. working class is the enemy. (The bastards voted for Reagan!) Its indifference to the poor and the Third World is based on its collusion in their exploitation. Hence the task of left politics is understood as moral harangue directed at workers, or more likely, anyone who identifies with them. The left would be purged of such "left conservatives" (sic). This is supposed to impress the truly immiserated, who in fact are more interested in joining their better-off compatriots.
>>
>>It isn't clear which group could be most interested
>>in left politics. Oppression does not strictly
>>correlate with activism.
>
>Oppression definitely correlates with activism. . . .
If only assertion made it so. . .
If you were right we would face a deafening political uproar of the oppressed.
>>
>>If I told my neighbor he was oppressed, he
>>would conclude I was nuts.
>
>Right now your neighbors probably are not interested in political
discussion of any sort, judging by my encounters with both blue and
white-collar workers at Columbia University. When they do become open to
political discussion--including radical ideas--people like yourself who
preach class-collaboration will have to be challenged. This is what our
ongoing debates on the Internet are a precursor to.>
In light of your political approach, it does not surprise me at all that you find few workers interested in "politics."
I do feel better about being branded a 'class collaborationist,' since the enemy class with which I am collaborating is the working class.
>>Politics which depend on descriptions of
>>extreme privation clearly have limited
>>prospects among better-off workers. Nor
>>are they likely to be impressed by
>>predictions of doomsday.
>
>Why don't you make this point at least a dozen more times? Is this what
they call a mantra?>
I don't know. You're the jazz club, cineaste, William Burroughs, Brecht Forum / Manhattan dude. I watch "TV Land."
> They will
>>certainly be repelled by blanket
>>accusations of racism, as well as by
>>policies which threaten to redistribute
>>their income to the poor.
>
>You are not dealing with Weathermen here. You are debating with people who
are simply making the case that racism has prevented the working class from
successfully challenging the rule of capital.>
Duh. Actually I think you're saying a lot more than that. "has prevented" is really "prevents". Take away the bombs, guns, and Charlie Manson's fork, add some erudition, and your line resembles the W-men quite closely. I will give you that you're a lot funnier than they ever were.
< David Roediger, Theodore Allen and others have written eloquent history. Have you ever read any of this?>
Nope.
>You have a different concept of left politics than I do. Your idea of left
politics is electing Al Gore.>>
Yuk. Needs no rejoinder.
<<My idea of left politics is to abolish the capitalist system. When you use the word "social democracy" from time to time, it is an Orwellian abuse of language. What you mean to say is the capitalist welfare-statism, which is not social democracy. David McReynolds is a social democrat. So is the Progressive Magazine. I have known social democrats. Sir, you are no social democrat.>
Well verily and zounds, sir, what pray tell is the difference between the welfare state and social-democracy?
N.B. David McR thinks I'm a social democrat.
Actually I've not claimed to be a social democrat. I operate within the s-d movement because that's the only place for me right now. I'm really a populist. But enough about me. Let's get back to you.
>The one who is amusing is you. A think-tank employee who has more
ambivalence about the 1960s radicalization than David Bowie has about his
sexuality. The reason you enjoy chatting with people like me is that they
remind you of what you were before you became a pillar of the
establishment.>>
Actually I used to be much cooler than you.
I talk to you because I think you have potential.
<< I would rather get out of politics entirely and take up organic gardening or birdwatching than be a defender of the status quo like you. As Willie Loman said in "Death of a Salesman," the woods are burning.>
You're already doing organic gardening.
As I recall Willie, he was in a rut that led to nowhere but the void. You ought to take up tap-dancing. It's aerobic.
Cheers,
Max