>Self-criticism within an existing and coherent left, at least roughly
>unified around both goals and strategy, is of course essential.
>So-called "criticism" of THE LEFT (which doesn't exist) is not
>self-criticism but selfconscious withdrawal in amused superiority to all
>those folk struggling in adverse circumstances to create a left in which
>self-criticism would be possible. It is either whining that others do
>not recogize the superior wisdom and moral character of the "Critic" or
>a gesture similar to the drawing in of the skirts of the stereotypical
>Victorian Woman at the presence of a streetwalker. An ideological purity
>grounded in the conscious moral rectitude of the "Critic."
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>Leftists today, however, don't always have even the shared short-term
>goals (just as leftists in the past didn't always have the shared
>short-term goals -- the "left" is a very loose and broad term),
>especially when it comes to foreign policy (though disagreements
>exist concerning domestic policy as well).
[snip]
>There is no coherent "Left" that want the same
>results even in the short term. As for long-term goals, differences
>become larger. What works for one faction doesn't work for another.
>Given the differences and even contradictions between factions, we
>should refrain from speaking of "the left in general" (although I
>sometimes lapse into the habit of doing so, as many leftists do).
>What works for Hitchens doesn't work for Chomsky, and so on, and so
>forth.
All very true. As you both point out, some agreement on goals and strategy is essential for self-criticism, and that is certainly lacking in "the left" today. I would also agree with you that it may not be very sensible to talk about "the left" as a coherent entity today, but we seem to be still in the habit of using it as a shorthand term, though *what* it is shorthand for is increasingly vague.
But there is certainly a widespread dissatisfaction with the state of what it *used*, anyway, to make sense to call "the left" in the U.S. Whatever we want to call these folks now, they (we) seem to have very little power to affect the course of events, and there seems to be a vague notion that this is not entirely the result of outside forces, but has at least something to do with mistakes that "these folks" have been making.
There is also a very strong feeling, as far as I can see, that it would be a good thing if these mistakes could be corrected and a stronger, more unified bunch of folks (call them "progressive" or whatever) organized. Or if not one bunch, a lot of bunches with different goals and strategies, but such that they could work synergistically with each other to help bring about a better world (maybe they could at least agree roughly on what "better" means here).
One big problem, it seems to me, is that, being in this powerless state, the various "left" groups become even more angry and resentful than before, and therefore lash out at each other, accusing each other of betraying the noble cause and acting as "class traitors" and "objective allies of the capitalist enemy," etc. Perhaps one place self-criticism could start is with reflection on whether this kind of conflict really serves any purpose. In any case, "self-criticism" means *self*-criticism -- not just automatically assuming that one's own group or tendency has the right theory and practice, and everyone else is a jackass or worse.
Ah, the hankering after utopia is so hard to get rid of!
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." -- Groucho