Since this debate has degenerated into ad hominem I feel I need to reconsider my two posting limit on this exchange.
In rereading my posting, I apologize for being overly harsh, particularly if this has led to Nathan's taking personal offense. That being said, I see little in Nathan's posting to force me to reconsider my position.
>
> My basic approach to politics is to assume the best motives of my opponents,
> even when I am denouncing their actions or strategies. Maybe they have bad
> motives, but it rarely contributes much to say so. Either the criticism of
> strategy holds up on its own, regardless of the motives of the leadership
> being criticized, or the criticism is weak, in which case no matter how
> corrupt the leadership, people won't trade something for even an honest
> nothing.
>
There are cases, it seems to me, that one is entirely justified in assuming the worst motives on the part of ones adversaries, and even, in many cases, on the part of one's ostensible friends. Furthermore, not to do so is irresponsible in those cases when it is justified, because, among other reasons, in not doing so one pre-empts constructive debate about the organizational structures which may lead to and encourage these abuses.
This is the general principle which we are discussing. As for particulars, I think we would agree that there are cases, Stalin, Hitler, Warren Anderson, chainsaw Al Dunlap, Lane Kirkland, when one has to call a spade a spade, not to do so is Polyanish and strategically unwise for reasons it would be useful to go into.
>
> >In any case, the principle you endorse, that rank and file must always
> >uncritically accept and defend the prerogatives of leadership of
> >organizations ostensibly set up in their interest has proven to be just as
> >demobilizing and counterproductive as the anti-organizational tendencies
> >you identify.
>
> Again, to repeat, I've written for LABORNOTES and support rank-and-file
> challenges to leadership in unions and any other organization, especially
> since that is usually where I have been in most organizations I've been a
> part of. What I was criticizing is unnuanced denunciations of other
> peoples' leaders, not because the criticism may be false, but because it
> rarely accomplishes much other than sowing divisions between different parts
> of the progressive movement.
>
I agree that "unnuanced denunciations" are rarely productive. The issue here is that unnuanced, knee-jerk defenses of leadership's complicity in selling out the rank and file are equally so.
> >Finally, your personal history, which you repeatedly trot out here, would
> >only be relevant if past associations of self-described progressvies were
> >any kind of reliable guide to where their true loyalties rest. For every
> >Noam Chomsky there are five "apostates" as they have been described on
> >this list: take your pick-Norman Podhoretz, Donna Shalala, Marvin Olasky
> >the list goes on and on. My sense is that you are much closer to the
> >latter than to the former.
>
> Which just goes to show how full of shit you are. Okay, I'm rewriting the
> rest of this sentence to edit out some of what I wrote, but you really
> should learn that biography is a far better guide to motives than what folks
> write on an email list. I have been doing left activism nearly nonstop for
> the last fifteen years of my life and consider myself, if anything, far more
> socialist than when I started. It is people like you looking for apostates
> and thought crimes that destroy the Left.
>
Invective aside, you fail to address the point that in numerous cases, biography is not a good guide to motives. Incidentally do you object to being placed closer to Donna Shalala than Noam Chomsky.
>
> No, my vote for David McReynolds is a statement that I think honest
> socialist third party work is a far better model than the Green Party
> approach has been. And its a statement of respect for a person who shows
> respect for other activists, despite his severe disagreements with them.
>
And so you reject Nader's attempts at encouraging citizen activism through his third party candidacy. Perhaps these are wrong headed, but to fail to recognize that this is an explicit aspect of his electoral strategy is a serious gap in your negative assessment of the Nader/Green alliance. Finally, if Ralph Nader is not worthy of some measure of respect, whatever his liabilities, it is hard to know who is.
And from J.H.
>
> >> Your decision not to vote for Nader, even in a state where it
> >>doesn't matter, is therefore a deliberate sabotaging of these
> >>non-electoral efforts.
>
> Which seems a bit intolerant to me. Is the case for Nada so overwhelming
> that not voting for him is a 'deliberate sabotage'? I don't see it
> myself, but being exempted from the vote, I hope I am not guilty of
> actual sabotage, only moral sabotage.
>
>
Quite so. This was overstated. The substanitive point, however, remains. Namely, that if one wants to encourage non-electoral activism it would seem logical to support an activist party that stands a chance of gaining enough support to receive the FEC windfall. For a self-described progessive to not do so based on some ill-defined animus is unjustifiable and a little churlish.
That's it for me. Can't I even get a little help from the anarchist contingent on this venture?
John