In a public sphere, when we criticize X, we might try, to the extent possible, not to inadvertently damage a broader cause/strategy/movement/etc. of which X happens to be a prominent promoter, unless we are also set on discrediting the broader cause/strategy/movement/etc. because X happens to be a prominent promoter of it. That's a question of tact -- regard for others.
In Chuck0's case, his dislike of WWP appears to have spilled over, for instance, into his pooh-poohing of what he has called "mass spectacles" -- mass rallies and marches that initially come with legal permits -- in general, and most likely vice versa. Conflation of criticism of a particular organization with that of a particular tactic that any organization may use, IMHO, is very counter-productive, especially in a public sphere. When specifically confronted on this point, Chuck0 often concedes that mass rallies and marches indeed have their place in organizing, but, on balance, his expressions of contempt for them (colored by his dislike of WWP) have outnumbered such concessions ten to one, devaluing not just WWP but all other organizations and rank-and-file participants who may see more political value at this point in mass rallies and marches than Chuck0's preferred tactics. Even if Chuck0 were 100% correct about WWP, his mode of criticism would present a problem for the rest of us who are neither WWP members nor Chuck0's brand of anarchists.
At 12:23 AM -0500 2/10/03, JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
>Sure, some prior unity can make the argument better. I have no
>interest in arguing about human evolution with creationists. But
>with too much prior unity the discussion just becomes unrelated to
>the general issues out there in the world. Doug's probably hoping
>LBO-talk can avoid either extreme.
A debate between Chuck0 and Lou Paulsen is not unlike one between creationists and evolutionists (in the eyes of Chuck0, Lou represents something akin to creationism, and probably vice versa). In contrast, debates between Lou and Justin, you and me, Chuck0 and Brian, etc. are much more meaningful than the above. There should be enough political and other differences on a listserv for it to generate any engaging debate, but differences should not be so large as to make one side of the debate feel as if the other were an alien life form.
At 12:23 AM -0500 2/10/03, JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
> >Principled internal debates on the left are absolutely
> >necessary, but internal debates, much less principled ones, can't
> >happen without a sense that (A) either there already exists a sort of
>>left to which debate participants belong one way or another or
>
>I don't agree. The 'left' preceeds Marx, is informed by his
>contribution, and goes on. If we still need to fight out the basic
>issues of democracy, then we still need to fight them out, not evade
>them, even if it means backtracking into what we foolishly thought
>was already settled. That's the left project. Very little is
>settled.
Some things _are_ settled on the left, though (or at least I hope so). We don't have to argue, for instance, that women can, do, and should participate in trade unions, that trade unions should not practice racial segregation, etc. To take a concrete example, there are institutions on the (broadly defined) left in which women's right to abortion is still not settled: e.g., the Labor Party. In such cases, the day will come when you will have to "fight them out," even if you do not want to. On the other hand, on listservs like this one, a more narrowly defined left-wing institution (where I can get away with complaining of the paucity of Marxists), we should be able to take the debate on reproductive rights and freedoms to a higher level, taking for granted that women should have the right to abortion, moving on to discuss how we may go about expanding access, etc.
At 12:23 AM -0500 2/10/03, JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
> >(B) debate participants are involved in a project to create such a left
>>to which they will belong one way or another.
>
>There's a place for this, but an email list among people who don't
>otherwise work together obviously isn't it.
I actually agree (I in fact already said that listservs are probably only good for bantering, info exchange, networking, etc.). I simply re-iterate that we ought not to mistake an external criticism for "an internal debate on the left." The former may have some value, but only if we don't confuse it with the latter. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://solidarity.igc.org/>