At 01:08 PM 11/14/98 -0500, pms wrote:
>>I would venture the supposition that the position you and
>>others advance is held by more people on this list than certain
>>over-excited, putatively "marxist" ones. I raise this as
>>a note of objection to LP's suggestion to Burford that he
>>migrate to a list more conducive to his politics.
>
>Yeah. Like Max said.
>
>a party of one
>pms
I want to take this opportunity to record Nathan's reply to my (polite) challenge. I regard his reply as a reasonable political position. On the words as stated, Nathan cannot be accused of falling into one-sidedness. Attacks on him that he is, would just repeat a cycle of unproductive posts, with both sides appearing to assert one sided view points.
I would like to take up the point about a party of one. I think it is wisest to assume everyone is in a party of one. The dream of finding someone on the internet who is a perfect political clone to oneself is an illusion. What we need here is a process of serious committed dialogue, trialogue, and debate, so that the whole effect creates a more serious grasp by left-wingers and marxists of what is happening now, and future directions for struggle.
Struggle on the internet is in a strange medium, and some like Louis Proyect try to win arguments by strongly suggesting or asserting that the subscriber is in a minority of one, and should go elsewhere. This tactic may work if half a dozen allies join in and create an *impression* that that is the case. But 90% of other subscribers might be sympathetic, neutral or wish the debate to continue. There is no way of taking a vote easily on an e-mail list and the issue gets decided by how solidly the person attacked stands his or her ground.
Another tactic is to challenge the person by lumping them together with a group of others who may have similar views in some respects but not in others. This sort of tribal approach ultimately leads to splits and damages the chance of a wide forum where correspondents coming from different tendencies can meet to test out the relevance of ideas. It improperly implies that correspondent A is responsible for all the views of correspondent B or correspondent C. For example in posting below Nathan's reply to my question, which I welcome, I am by no means necessarily implying I agree with all his views about the IMF, which I have not had time to read.
I suggest the only principled basis for participating in lists such as this, is to take responsibility for ones one views and try to identify together with others where there is common ground.
Therefore I do not mind if for a time I may appear to be in a minority of one, and I suggest no one else should. The reward for me is not that I receive a flood of posts in reply to my post Capitalism and Clinton, but that I receive one post from another subscriber which seriously engages with the issues, and provides a basis for taking the issues further.
My impression is that this list is definitely making progress in engaging in real issues, while accepting that some correspondents will continue to come from different sides of the political spectrum. Properly handled that is a valuable resource. For example I can see the article Louis Proyect forwarded about Al Gore and Tobacco adds to the range of relevant information even though I continue to think that LP comes from a one-sided stance on these questions. I believe my stance is more all sided, although it would be subjective and idealist for anyone to claim that their own viewpoint is totally all-sided and the final answer. That just leads to personality clashes.
Here immediately below is the reply I received from Nathan Newman, which I regard as a very reasonable position:
Chris Burford
London
_________________________________________________________________
From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan.newman at yale.edu> To: "Chris Burford" <cburford at gn.apc.org> Subject: Re: Gingrich falls + personal Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:14:35 -0500
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>; nathan.newman at yale.edu <nathan.newman at yale.edu>
>I am interested to read your account of the relatively
>progressive features of the Clinton administration. But every post by
>definition is one sided, even if the balance of posts makes for a more
>all-sided and dialectical dialogue.
>How would you demonstrate that your position is not one sided, and does
not
>necessarily entail:
>a) being fixated on elections, (crass parliamentarism)
>b) tailing after those sections of the bourgeoisie who you think
>progressive people should temporarily support
>c) creating personal illusions in individual bourgeois leaders?
The word is "relatively progressive" as in relative to rightwingers who want to go far beyond Thatcher in destroying labor union rights and power, want to clearcut the environment from sea to shining sea, and want to destory every shred of social insurance. That is not merely their desire but legislation passed and vetoed by Clinton.
As for fixation on elections, as I've noted I spend almost none of my activist time on elections but rather on street organizing and labor support. It is precisely because I don't emphasize electoral work that I endorse strategic support of lesser-evilism, since the temporary gains from "relatively" better policies is useful while I think the "illusions" in those politicians is rather low (unless "contempt", the usual attitude towards most politicians, counts as illusions).
Real social change is made by the accumulation and expansion of power by the progressive community in non-electoral organizing. At best, the electoral field reflects that expansion of power.
My problem with most third party efforts is that they seem like electoral vanguardists: through the will to power, they somehow think they can turn a lack of non-electoral organization into a political coup against capitalism. I think it's naive given the real structures of power in the US and dangerous if it allows the destruction of non-electoral organizing in pursuit of the chimera of "purity" of electoral action.
--Nathan Newman