>If American leftists were so well organized, they would be
>able to stop the US aid to Israel, Plan Colombia, etc.
>
>Yoshie
-But to have any such effect, the American left would have to meet a basic -ontological challenge first. It would have to exist.
What does it mean for "a left" to "exist"? How are we defining "a left" (I guess with the emphasis on singular) and "exist" (again with a construction on singular homogeneity)?
I am first in line to call for greater coordination and strategic unity by leftists, but there is a strange denial of the very vibrant movements that, for my money, count as "left" - from anti-police brutality activists to anti-globalization protesters to union organizers, all sharing a socialist-minded economic and social worldview.
As I said, I would love to see more unified strategy among all those left activists but there is sometimes a reference to a rather mythical supposed past or foreign existence of left unity. Even in the high point of Popular Front driven left unity led by the CP in the late 30s there was an incredible diversity of union and social strategies-- the CP was never weaker in its leadership than when it tried to dictate a single "line", usually on foreign policy, which alienated it from the much more flexible application of broadly agreed principles in specific social and political contexts.
My view of left unity has always assumed that the goal would not be single strategies but merely coordination that maximizes the effectiviness and complementary effect of alternative strategies-- whether in "good cop, bad cop" revolution/reform demands on the system or in targetting opponents from multiple social bases.
Despite some tough strategic and ideological debates, particularly on the anti-globalization movement, I frankly see far more unity across "the left" today than in decades, with union, civil rights, environmental and feminist left activists in far more "sync" than at any period since the 1930s.
-- Nathan Newman
-- Nathan Newman