Vikash Yadav wrote:
> Why haven't the Democrats gone on the offensive? I think the left should
> adopt much more vicious tactics.
You answer your own question by giving two *entirely* separate questions as though they were related.
There is no *organized* left in the United States, so it makes no sense to speak of "The Left" doing or not doing anything. There is a question as to what the scattered leftists, the raw material so to say of a potential but not actual left, should do. And *note*, those leftists are so scattered that *no one*, except the leftists themselves, will know what they are doing.
Then you ask why the Democratic Party has not gone on the offensive. But that is not true: the Democratic Party began a vigorous offensive *against* the working class and all progressive elements in the United States back in the early 1970s.
There remains this really weird assumption that, somehow, and despite all evidence to the contrary, the Democratic Party is somehow, in some sense, "really" on the side of our class. This simply is not true, nor is the assumption that it is based on, that there exist significant splits or real material differences within the U.S. ruling class. I have written on this elsewhere as follows:
**** "Matt D." wrote:
> some notion that the Democratic Party
> is somehow, in some sense, "really" more on the side of our
> class than the Republicans.
This I think gets to the heart of the matter. Two things.
1a. The Democrats are, *really*, not remotely any more on our side than the Republicans -- they are *against* us, period. They are our enemy.
1b. They probably are the more dangerous enemy; they exist, essentially, for no other purpose than to divide us. The Democratic Party, above all other institutions and groups in the U.S., most significantly and powerfully operates against our central slogan, "Workers Unite." Consider, for example, the fight over PNTR, and the way that the Democrats were able to do the impossible: be both for and against it simultaneously. The Democrats as opponents of PNTR (i.e., operating through the AFL-CIO) fought it on essentially racist and chauvinist lines, thus reinforcing all the retrograde tendencies in the workers movement. The Democrats as a governing party pushed it through, confident that the illusion that they are "really" more on our side than the Republicans would prevent workers, minorities, and progressives from noticing the real political effect of PNTR. The Seattle Coalition may or may not survive this beautiful ploy by the Democrats.
2. This illusion regarding the Democrats is grounded in the illusion of "real" divisions within the U.S. ruling class, a division which ostensibly manifests itself in the 'struggle' between Democrats and Republicans. Struggles within the U.S. ruling class at this time should be seen as rather resembling the annual Yale-Harvard football game. The partisans of the two elite academies can become extremely emotional over that rivalry. Probably if one researched it diligently enough there may even have been a fatality or two in drunken fights before or after the game. But just let the students from the junior college where Michael teaches try to exploit that difference. It makes as much sense as delusions that at the present time the left can exploit any divisions within the u.s. ruling class.
We have work to do. And perhaps the most important work we have to do is to destroy the illusion that in any remote way, the Democratic Party is on our side or kinder to our side.
Carrol