>But sometimes leaders on the left make the same demands. Trust me, I've
>read Marx. Trust me, I am older and wiser. Trust me, we don't have time
>for input. And the often-unstated, trust me, I'm a straight White guy, and
>the left was doing fine until all these "special interest" groups began
>whining about victim status.
that's gatekeeping, yes?
>So while we agree on how people join the left, I think we may disagree on
>the issue of gatekeeping. On some broad scale there has to be some
>ideological core to being on the left. Not just one, but many. And I think
>that is precisely what needs to be debated right now if we are going to
>build a positive program.
what i'd responded to was gordon's claim that there wasn't a coherent left. i said: some of us know that; some of us lament that. translation: some folks are willing to work with that fundamental instability and, indeed, see dissent from the ranks of those saying "trust me...." as a healthy thing. you seem to be saying the same thing, right?
as for positive programs, any critique of the existing order implicitly contains a positive vision of what ought to be. a critique may not flesh out a detailed blue print of what the struggle is moving toward and, for mine, that's a Good Thing (tm). I think it's yours as well.
so, drawing on Alison Jaggar's argument in _Feminist Politics and Human Nature_ I think we can say that what unites leftists is opposition to individualist analyses countered by structural or systemic analyses of social issues.
which is what you also said.
what i object to is any claim that the people just learning how to articulate their critique of US policy ought to be bounced out on their behinds because they haven't learned to critique US policy from a structuralist perspective. i would hope that, like me, they'd learn to start seeing one while engaged in practice and that they will take it further, perhaps, with more sustained study.
>What does it mean to be a leftist in the face of corporate globalization,
>US militarism, systemic oppression, political repression, and murderous
>terrorism? What distinguishes our opposition from the Buchananites and the
>libertarians? How do we craft a set of ideologies that can also unite
>under a set of basic and sparse principles of unity that will allow a
>broad coalition that can recruit more people and not just speak to ourselves?
open dialogue. .... sustained analyses of the issues from a structuralist perspective that refute conspiracy theories. ... a willingness to engage in critical self-reflection _AS_ "leaders". information. knowledge. ideas. argument. respectful and even heated disagreement.
>Because right now most people in this country think we are traitors who are
>apologists for ghastly terrorism.
>
>-Chip Berlet
well, this seems to be a different issue. these folks aren't going to peace protest meetings. i haven't encountered any, anyway.
kelley