-----Original Message----- From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>The problem is that Rorty wants us to contain the scope of 'decision,
>action, and common goals' within his narrow nationalist and social
>democratic agenda. And that's the reason why he gets along very well with
>the well-paid bureaucrats of the AFL-CIO.
Considering the venom of what's been said about Rorty and Alterman, I am struggling to see what they are being most criticized for (other than guilt by personal or philosophical association).
Both seem to be arguing that the Left cannot win without a majoritarian politics rooted in the American tradition that utilizes class as an organizing principle.
And they observe that the US Left has been losing power and seem badly divided.
Well, the reactions to them emphasize the division.
But by what criterion does Rorty have a "narrow" agenda?
To dismiss reform automatically (especially when we are in a period when reforms are being destroyed in favor or much worse in many cases) is a narrow viewpoint, but I fail to see why Rorty noting the fact that the Left was largely silent as $500 billion in S&Ls were looted during the 1980s is a "narrow" viewpoint.
Folks like Rorty want to emphasize that the Left cannot win without a majoritarian view, while others would equally emphasize that we need the convictions and issue base that can mobilize people around race, gender and identity issues that often transcend class.
Both are accurate and it is a tension for the Left, but it is not a tension that can be transcended merely by trashing one side or the other. Each side will rightly point out the limits of the other viewpoint, but I sometimes wonder if people have stopped arguing with the goal of winning in favor of the goal of establishing each side's respective ideological purity.
--Nathan Newman