>>Jonathan wrote:
>>[The Left was a threat at certain points snipped]
>Okay, fair enough.
>
>>And that's what we use now. But I think the left needs a clear media
>>strategy along with everything else and has to either a) forge massive
>>media networks on par with those of the right or b) actively fight to
>>democratize existing media networks. I think a combination of the two
>>approaches is probably best, but lampposts and the internet (which is
>>hardly a bastion of leftism--and hardly a democratic medium) aren't
>>enough.
>
>hmmm...i guess i agree in principle, but it's putting
>into practice that worries me. How, without the huge
>fiscal resources of Capitalism, can we possibly gain
>parity in media extent and power?
it doesn't need parity, it needs some sort of strategy that is useful in getting some kind of voice out there. Media power in and of itself doesn't mean all that much, the impact of media is often overplayed by the left, both in describing the power of the capitalist media and in schilling for their own little newspapers.
The real benefit the left has, if it has any, is the fact that people's real lives *DON'T* match the media. The media may announce that the market is great and that thanks to a 10K Dow. more people than ever are getting free money, but the mounting debts and the fluid labor market, and 25 years of declining wages following by own year of a slight rise may be telling them different. No matter how many trial balloons the media floats about the shooting of Amadou Diallo by the NYPD (the police slipped and shot by mistake, the ricochet made the cops think Diallo had a gun, a mystery witness claimed Diallo said he had a gun, Diallo lied to sneak into the country) the public keeps popping them by their shared experience that the NYPD is pretty nasty and that it isn't just a collection of average joes who get kittens down off trees.
But, if people know the media and ideological structures in general are not to be completely trusted, they do not know what to replace it with yet. The left has some role in here, but reality is the major mover of people leftwards.
> I can alllllmost see democratisation being easier, but only in theory,
>absent a great New-Deal-ish shift leftward, something
>that doesn't look likely any time soon
The New Deal wasn't a shift left, it was a reaction to a shift left.
>Do you have substantive reason to feel more optimistic?
Large scale multiethnic demonstrations against the police In NYC that brought the downtown gay rights community into the first real contact it had with the uptown anti-racist community in years, with the reactionary Nation Of Islam nowhere to be seen. Trade union involvement in these same demos. A country full of people that decided it was okay for even a President to enjoy a blowjob, in spite of harangues about the rule of law and propriety. Lower than ever party identification with the Democrats or the Republicans, a muted or non-existent "rally around the flag" for the bombing in Kosovo (fun fact: Abcnews gave the headline _Support For Bombing Grows_ for an article that showed the support staying constant or dropping in most of the questions asked), outrage over gay bashing instead of quiet shrugging, there are a few things to be happy for.
>
>>I see many credible programS. The key here is plural. I'm not talking
>>about one unified national or international left movement because at the
>>moment, there isn't one. But there are smaller groups doing good things
>>for people in their own ways, and a lot of them. None are ideologically
>>pure, but if one gets past knee-jerk orthodoxies there is much for any one
>>of us to do. .
>
>I agree that there are small ventures all over the
>place. But my issue is our lack of -- in marketing/
>PR/psywar terms :-) -- a 'story to tell'. I'm
>talking about the equivalent of Capitalist mythology.
There is that too, it was hidden or lost. But it isn't a story that will bring people to the left, it is the condition of their own lives. Stories are important, but they are not why the left is tiny.
>Right now, Capitalism says, in essence (this is a
>jumble):
>
>- Capitalism is the only success story in the world,
>and it's a success story wherever it goes.
People believe this one.
>- Socialism has been at best a failure and at worst
>murderously so whenever and wherever it's been tried in
>modern society.
Some people still wonder, especially now that the USSR is not a constant threat/bugaboo
>- Under Capitalism, everyone can succeed if they just
>work hard.
I'd be surprised if most people believed this one today.
>- Capitalism is based on fair competition, the
>Invisible Hand, individual responsibility, individual
>wealth, no parasitic government --- and it works!!
Most people don't buy this, I'd suggest. People do hate big business and politicians both these days, almost instinctly.
>- Under Capitalism, even very poor people have a color
>TV, and better living conditions than pre-Capitalist
>societies ever imagined.
Yeah, well that one is true, at least in the US! I'd much rather be a poor person in the US than a serf in the year 1299.
>- People who work hard should get all the fruits of
>their labour.
Hey, I believe that too. That's why I'm a socialist. That moral push can be used both ways.
>- It's not possible to have a successful
>communist/socialist society at any level above about
>100 people and gatherer/hunter conditions.
Oh, I think there are plenty of people who'll at least ring out "What about Sweden/kibbutz/Indian tribes" not that these are socialist, but I don't think this idea has sunk as deeply as youi think.
>- Nobody hardworking should have to support freeloaders
>who don't want to work.
Socialists believe the opposite?
>- There isn't enough for everybody.
No no, the myth is, there is more than enough for everybody so consume consume consume
>This forms the Capitalist mythos, that pervades the
>entire culture. It's accepted as true because it is
>so pervasive, and because the left has no myth ready to
>oppose it on anything more than handwaving grounds.
I don't buy that it is accepted as true nearly as much as you do, or that an alternative mythology is what is needed. There are material conditions and relationships which inform the politics of a society, not just the existence and or lack of neat stories.
>We neither puncture their balloon, nor do we have one of
>our own to float. So we get no support because we have
>nothing supportable!
"Don't shoot black people 41 times" seems quite supportable. "Don't fire people then rehire them as temps for half the price" seems quite supportable and I would suggest that most people do support these things. What are you doing to make sure there is something to support? That's the key issue.
>It seems to me that it's a chicken/egg problem: how
>are we to get better participation without a credible
>story to tell?
We do have one, more than one. Why do you think we don't?' Why do you think capitalism has one story and not many? I see several:
1. Capitalism is the best system possible. 2. Capitalism is the best system for harnassing the inherent greed of human nature, though greed is a bad thing. 3. Capitalism is the lesser of two evils, so don't reform it or it will become a greater evil. 4. Capitalism may be broken, but we can fix it through shared sacrifice. 5. Capitalism sucks, but do you have any other ideas? 6. Clear the streets or we will open fire.
At different points in US history, all of these stories have been used and all of them have had primacy.
>Again, i guess i'd agree with you more if we had a
>central mythos. A party line, if you like. Something
>that can be pointed to, that everyone says Yep, that's
>The Truth. I've never heard of any successful
>movement (apart from religions) that didn't have a set
>of defensible central principles.
What do you mean by defensible? Marginal utility economics is built on a logical tautology and is thus indefensible, but hasn't stopped capital from enriching itself. The difference is the material difference in power, not the convincing nature of the ideological story. Why do you think the story is the key and not the fact that history shows massive attacks against the left and labor in the US?
>>Honestly, I think this kind of discussion quickly degenerates into the
>>verbal equivalent of pants-dropping.
>
>I don't recognise the metaphor, but it sounds
>interesting :-)
>
>Perhaps i've sounded too contentious, and if so i
>apologise. I don't question anyone's good faith. I do
>feel a considerable sense of frustration because here
>we have this wonderful communications medium and it
>seems as though we're using it 'to rearrange the deck
>chairs on the Titanic' (i'd prefer a fresher metaphor,
>but can't think of one).
You think this medium is more wonderful than it is, I'd suggest. Doug spelled out a few reasons before.
>I belong to the local co-op. We're leftish (if a bit
>too New-Age-ish for my taste) and we do our tiny best
>to implement socialist principles. But it's a drop in
>the bucket.
Can it be any less, if socialism is supposed to be an economic system on par with capitalism in terms of universalism and primacy. If I set up a little kingdom and took half my neighbor's garden would I be "trying to implement feudal principles"? Of course not, I'd just be a minor thief or extortionist. The material world and what we do in it comes first, ideas fly into our heads second.
>Just like Ithaca NY, with it's 'Hours'
>counter-economy -- fine as far as it goes, and
>doubtless the source of great satisfaction to all its
>participants -- but it doesn't go very far at all.
How could you expect it to?
>It seems to me that people jump on bandwagons mostly
>when they're brightly colored, making a lot of noise,
>and already overloaded.
Here is where I think is the problem. If you start with the conception that people who aren't you are stupid enough to be fooled so easily and completely by light rather than heat, you'll rarely talk to them, get involved with them or recognize them when they go into action on their own. Why did blue collar workers like Reagan? Because he didn't despise them for their stupidity. He used them, he screwed them, but he didn't hate them like so much of the left does as it sets itself up as ubermenschen clucking their tongues at the stupid proles and the hypno-ray boob tube that enslaves them.
>It seems to me we don't even
>have the wheels on ours, yet. That's what bothers me.
>It's not going to get very far, without the wheels on.
There's wheels. We need people to push instead of complaining that the wagon is heavy and it really isn't the wagon I want to be on and oh look at that wagon over there no fair they're so much better than we are and why aren't those stupid people thanking us for building this crappy little wagon for them.