>At 6:25 PM -0400 7/29/02, John Halle wrote:
>>[How does John Halle know that listmembers' engagement with "the
>>movement" is "exclusively literary"? I'm guessing that quite a few
>>subscribers are quite active in nonliterary ways. - DH]
>
>John Halle is guessing (or at least suggesting) that the proportion
>of purely literary versus organizational energies undertaken by
>participants on this list is excessively weighted towards the
>former. The terrabytes of neo-Marxist minutiae on the LBO archive
>(the utility of which, from an organizing standpoint is limited, to
>put it mildly) constitute a strong argument for this position.
>
>He could be convinced, I suppose, that more of this verbiage than he
>is currently willing to admit serves to advance progressive
>politics. He could also convinced, more easily, that attempting to
>organize within the Green Party is not the most effective use of
>progressive energies.
>
>But to deny the essential fact of the matter and to deny that the
>despair at the futility of leftist organizations frequently attested
>to here is not a predictable consequence of this imbalance seems to
>him shortsighted.
---
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:36:39 -0400 To: dhenwood at panix.com From: John Halle <john.halle at SNET.Net>
>> From: John Halle <john.halle at SNET.Net>
>> Subject: green dysfunctionality and left disengagement
>>
>> Except for the fact that he's making an exceedingly soft-headed move
>> running in a race where he will be lucky if he gets 1.5% of the vote,
>Why's that? Isn't the race for Texas governor a perfect oppurtunity for
>lefties to vote their conscience?
Well, yes it's a perfect opportunity however it is an opportunity which will be missed since the Texas Green organization does not have the ability to get the word out to more than a tiny fraction of Texas voters. Media will, completely reasonably, regard the results as a rejection not just of the candidate but of the progressive agenda. This is a net loss and will not compensate for benefits the campaign brings in terms of "raising issues" (the usual justification for losing campaigns.)
Had he run for a state legislative seat and done well, something which might be possible if the local chapters put in the time and energy, the result could have been a modest, albeit real success for the progressive agenda, and one which could be built on in subsequent years.
This is the topic of some conversation in Green circle, though still not enough in my opinion.
>--the Green Party sucks because
>it has no power so I won't help build it, ensuring that it will never gain
>power.
>How about this similar formulation: "The Democratic party sucks because
>it's too far rightward so I won't attempt to drag it leftward, ensuring that
>will never be a party of the left"? Both Alan's point and mine are empty until
>one of us demonstrates that our calls to action could bring about the ends
>we suggest would follow.
The argument is that the reliance of on huge amounts of corporate cash insures that even the mildest challenges to corporate dominance of the economic and political system will never materialize within the DP. And as Justin and others have consistently noted, attempts by progressives to drag the DP leftward are met with resistance and ultimately defeated. This is completely predictable given who pays the bills.
The Green Party's rejection of corporate money make anti-corporate politics at least theoretically possible within the Greens, though again, we have not jumped on the issue with sufficient enthusiasm, as Sifry correctly noted.
John --