> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 15:59:14 alexlocascio at juno.com (Alex LoCascio)
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 13:24:04 -0800 Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad at gte.net>
> writes:
>
> >>After all, Marx supported reforms in his day. Surely there must be SOME
> >reforms worth struggling for nearby that have seeds of future struggle
> >in them, no?
>
> > Well, here's the thing, Paul: Upon returning from Union Summer
> > this past August, fresh from the front lines of the class struggle
> > (such as it is these days) and full of idealism, I decided to hike
> > on down to the local AFL-CIO Central Labor Council and see if they
> > had any use for me. As it turns out, they did. The AFL, along
> > with kindred Democratic Party interest groups like the NAACP and
> > the APRI, was hard at work getting out
>
> Just as a point, you did not have to let the AFL-CIO be the ultimate
> guide as to where to donate your time.
Understatement of the century.
My point is that YOU should be able to determine something for yourself. There are times when supporting an AFL-CIO action may be just the thing, but taking them as your guide... I sure never recommended ANYTHING like that.
> (Though the union struggles you
> mentioned sound like a lot better use for your time than supporting
> demo party hacks.)
>
> Some random possible causes
> Mumia Abdul Jamal
> Hurricane Mitch Relief
> Single Payer Health
> 10+/HOUR minimum wage/living wage
> Equalizing per student education expenditures (at least within your
> state)
All sound pretty good to me.
> ==============
> By the way -- in terms of accusation of racism against Niles -- it
> seems to be based on past disagreements with Niles rather than
> contents of post. The particular criticism he made does not seem to be
> helpful -- but criticism just as strong might be.
>
> Look, the anti-capitalist left has failed miserably (compared to what
> it hope to achieve).
>
> Reducing the possibilities to two is always dangerously reductionist,
> but I will do so anyway. Either
> 1) Historical circumstances are such that we could not have
> accomplished significantly more than we have (which I do not believe)
> 2) We on the left have screwed up big time. I tend to believe this,
I think its a mixture of the two.
> and if so this is good news -- because somebody can figure out where
> we have screwed up so we can *stop doing it and start doing things
> right*.
I agree wholeheartedly -- though because I think both factors are involved, part of what we need to figure out is how we've screwed up in our analysis of historical circumstances.
> So to tell you the truth I would like to see a lot more criticism as
> harsh as that Niles made -- but more intelligently directed so as to
> point towards a better way of doing thing.
I disagree. Harsh criticism is not going to help us out at all. I get caught up in it as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day what we need is clear thinking and compassion.
The harsh criticism thing is part of what we've done to screw up big time. It may be needed here and there, but I'm sure I overdo it, and I think almost everyone here if they were honest would say the same.
Bottom line: I don't believe in capital punishment. I don't believe in spanking kids. I don't believe that punishment in general is effective. I don't believe that competition or losing build character. I could go on, but the point is this: relying on harsh criticism is inconsistent with the core of my beliefs. It's a good idea to work on reducing it, transforming it into something less harsh and more incisive.
Heck, I'll even try it with Christopher.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"