See below:
> -Well, I guess that makes one a typical individualistic, unorganized
> -American leftist who fancies they can pick and choose willy-nilly where
> -they stand on issues without any concern for internal coherence.
>
> Actually, I think my positions are far more coherent than your simple
> opposition lines, since I support democratic self-determination in all
those
> cases. Democratic primaries are where the vast mass of people vote, so
that
> is where I put my allegiance, not in micro-sect third parties whose
> leadership and rank-and-file are far less diverse than the Dems.
No, you don't support democratic self-determination, when you encourage others to support organuizations that consist of narrow elitist cliques of political careerists. Your mistake here is to assume that the Democratic Party is a 'mass' party, consisting of the mass of people who vote for it. It is no such thing. Putting aside the fact that half the people - a half that is disproportionately worker and non-white - don't vote at all, it is more important in this context to point out that both 'major' parties consist of tiny cliques of upwardly mobile political careerists and their coteries of office-seeking cronies. That's it, and that includes the progressive Democrats as well. It is a narrowly self-selecting millieu regardless of 'multicultural' appearance - it is a political monoculture. The 'diversity' spoken of above is pure illusion. The 'mass' relation to these organizations, limited to the occasional electoral event as it is, is constricted and passive in the extreme. The pathetic protests against the theft of the presidency by Bush demonstrate this. It was also demonstrated, locally, with the defeat of Elihu Harris by Bock & Greens in a relatively progressive constituency, in an off year election when it was, largely, motivated activists who turned out and, as it turned out, the Democrats don't have very many when the money isn't there to buy or import them.
This analysis means that leftists can reach the mass (whether voting or nonvoting) without having to 'enter' the Democratic Party (anarchists would say also without entering the electoral arena, but that is another issue, and I have said it has to be 'entered' at certain points in order to disrupt the process). And it is a ruse of false humility to claim that one is 'merely doing as the masses do', then to counterpose as 'elitist' any attempt at seriously thinking through the political impasse with the intent of breaking out of it. We've seen all these rhetorical tricks before, show us some new ones! Now we know the NLG has to have some very smart and well-educated people in it. We'll even call the new florishes "progress", if you like.
>Pacifica
> management is completely undemocratic at this point, so I side with the
> opposition. Cops violate democratic rights through their brutality and
> violations of individual rights, so I side with Mumia and others oppressed
> by our police state. And the Palestinians are oppressed by the Israelis,
> although I call myself "moderately" pro-Palestinian since I grant
> recognition to the legitimate national aspirations of the Jews in Israel
as
> well. And I sided with the Kosovars seeking democratic self-determination
> against the undemocratic oppression of Milosevic's regime.
Well, out of curiosity, let's update a couple of these. What is your position on:
1) Iraq (and U.S./U.K. intervention throughout the whole middle east), and;
2) The current struggle of Albanian Kosovars in the piece of southern Serbia that has been in the news as of late?
> >The number one problem facing american leftists is summed in a phrase:
> >political organization.
>
> Yet the funny thing is that I have probably been more consistently
involved
> in broad left-identified, even Marxist-identified organizations than
almost
> anyone else on this list in the last decade. I spent 1993-1998 involved
in
> both the local and national leadership of the Committees of Correspondence
> and am now an elected Vice-President of the National Lawyers Guild, the
main
> leftwing lawyers organization.
>
> I spend my activist time supporting the organization of unions because I
am
> dedicated to building organization to defend and promote progressive
> objectives.
Well, I was speaking on a very general level. To clarify in this instance: the failure of american leftists to practically distinguish _organizationally_ between support for the political regime and opposition to it. Thus one can represent oneself "in opposition" to the regime within one's "constituent organization" (such as the NLG) on particular issues - and actually, objectively, be in opposition at times - while simultaneously supporting the same political regime by supporting one of its parties (state-sponsored parties, moreover). Such is the sway of pragmatism over American political culture that it just doesn't get it that such (seemingly, purely) organizational contradictions are in fact a _political_ contradiction. That's when organization becomes a matter of principle, however one may try to mask this as "voting with the workers". That mask is only possible because of the failure to comprehend another key question of organization: What is a mass political organization? As explained above, the Democratic Party is not a mass political organization.
Hell, many american leftists do not even perceive a "political regime" - that's a bit of tawdriness we'd expect in countries with names like Argentina or Iraq, not in our shiny eternal American city on the hill!
> But the reality of organization is that people don't always agree on every
> issue; the only time they do is when its an organization of one person or
> one person plus a lot of weak-willed followers. Which is no kind of
> organization at all. Real organization is the uniting of those with
similar
> aspirations for social justice and commitment to work together over the
long
> term despite the many disagreements on sub-issues at various points.
>
> >But in fact it is the
> >left liberal supporters of the conservative, procapitalist Democratic
Party
> >that are splitting from the rest of american leftists while at the same
> >time they want to continue the rhetoric of representing themselves as our
> >political "friends". This disorganizing tactic must be refused.
>
> Sorry, but you are living in rhetorical dreamland if you think most folks
> who identify as leftists vote third party. If you want to identify all
> those who vote Democratic as capitalist sell-outs, you are on a major ego
> trip to think you are so much better than some stunningly dedicated
> activists who, in November, usually pull the lever for the Democrats, then
> go back to their main work of tough organizing for justice.
This is a complete miscomprehension of what was said here. Words would be wasted here, _except_ on the premise that _most_ leftists (who are mostly left-liberals) _support_ the Democratic Party, and support it with more than their vote (unlike workers). That's the problem that needs to be resolved! It is a problem become more acute as the Democrats have moved ever rightward under the DLC, dragging their left-liberal supporters along with them. As a result, it is the left-liberals that have split to the right, away from the minority of leftists who stand outside the Democratic Party.
And BTW, this is hardly intended as some sort of 'ego trip' or as an exercise in leftist accreditation - although it is typically american leftist to see things this way. It is a statement of =>fact<=! Can you say "Jesse Jackson"? I've yet to see this refuted as fact.
In general, the politically active elites are further to the right than they represent themselves (even to themselves), while the masses are further to the left than they are represented, by the same elite, of course.
> Frankly, I consider the third party folks misguided allies, but I'll take
> the mass of working folks voting Democratic
Alas, working folks are not yours for the taking, because, as already explained above, they aren't "in" the Democratic Party and are therefore unreachable by this means. Likewise, they can't be reached by the act of passively voting "alongside" them, this is an anonymous public act. In fact, as Nathan reveals here, "real people" can only be reached via organizations _outside_ the Democratic Party, such as trade unions, etc.
So the question remains unanswered: Why support this conservative party? If the Supreme Court is all there is, then this demonstrates that left-liberalism has abandoned even the pretense of a struggle for democracy and instead asks us to resign ourselves to openly oligarchical rule. That is how grave the situation has become, and every leftist supporter of the Democratic Party is responsible for allowing this situation to come to pass.
> over the marginal third party activists who matter little in the grand
scheme of
> things.
Ah, 'in the grand scheme of things' - that's real insider talk for you! That's the opiate dispensed to american left-liberals to make them feel in the grand scheme. But it is a complete fantastic self-delusion, and the last 20 years have proven this beyond any shadow of a doubt. American left-liberalism had utterly failed to reverse the reactionary tide, which has now reached the point where elections are openly stolen.
But the fact is that we oppositionists _do_ matter, else why would left-liberals visit their frothingly 'tender' attentions - i.e., political repression - upon us, not only in the elections but at other moments as well? Deeds do belie words here.
One supposes that to 'prove the point', response to the above will cease.
-Brad Mayer Oakland, CA
> --- Nathan Newman
>
>