>>By the way, this relates to the conversation we've never had about
the virtues of the "grassroots." There's a tendency among validators
of the grassroots to turn conventional discourse on its head -
instead of the elite commentators being the subjects presumed to
know, the rank and file becomes that. Life isn't so simple.<<
i agree. but that doesn't seem to me to be the most pressing question at the moment. i think jeff is right to point to the divergence between the 'fix it' and 'nix it' sections is important; but i wouldn't say this is a question of which actions or sections were authentic or no. what's becoming more than apparent is that the attempt to 'fix it' will not produce those elements of social democracy that we might like and support: basic incomes, welfare reforms, labour rights, not to mention redistribution in any serious sense, etc. the only thing -- and i really mean the only thing -- that will be 'conceded' here are along the lines of the ravings about the threat of mexican and chinese workers. that, plus a new round of criminalisation of those who remain outside this process, whether they're part of the nominal constituencies of those who are at the table or not.
(btw, hkl was a myopic nationalist. he could just as easily, and did, denounce criticisms of china and mao with whatever rhetoric came to mind -- anti-racism being the most handy -- as laud hitler and buchanan. it's just that on some occassions he happened to be right about anti-chinese sentiment; but on most, he was just being the good patriot. if that's what passes as anti-racism, we're in a more sorry state than i thought.)
Angela _________