joanna bujes wrote:
>
> Chip writes:
>
> "This IS all about the political right using Gramsci's theories to
> establish cultural hegemony through skillful framing of issues and the
> use of right-wing populist rhetoric that generally plays well to a broad
> audience in the U.S. What is puzzling is why the liberals and the left
> can't seem to break through this crap with a set of frames and messages
> that captures the public's attention."
>
> There are a number of reasons: 1) the left is not monolithic but split between the reformers (dem party shading into Green) and the socialists. These folks don't really have the same agenda or the same goals.
This does not really describe the present left. The split is not between revolutionaries and reformists, but between those (both reformists and revolutionaries) who are focused on building a _mass_ movement outside the electoral arena and those who are focused on gaining electoral power _now_.
One does not work directly for revolution. (Actually, this is one of the things one learns from Lenin if one reads enough of him and reads it in the context of the conditions in which he was writing a given text.) One works to build a mass movement, which may or may not at a given time encounter conditions which both increase the magnitude of the movement _and_ radically weaken the ruling class and its state. Those conditions are not predictable, since they usually arise from contingent circumstances. But one can predict, in general, that if there is not a mass movement ("reformist" in some sense) under way such conditions will produce some form of right authoritarianism rather than revolution.
Build the Mass Movement.
At present, that means build the anti-war movement around the slogan, Bring the troops home. The purpose of a slogan, of course, is to bring people together to talk to each other, and it is in that context that the complexities get hammered out and the hopes for expansion of the movement.
Almost all of the people active in BNCPJ (Bloomington/Normal Citizens for Peace and Justice) are passionately desirous of a democratic victory next year, BUT, all of them (partly from their own original perceptions but also to some significant extent from what I and Jan have been quiethly saying for two years) are passionately committed now in addition to building the BNCPJ itself and extending its reach. And quite a few of them have redefined their role (as individuals) in the electoral campaign as "raising the bar of debate." That was how they began formulating what they wanted to do -- and they did that in response to arguments Jan, a local Green Party member, and I were making.
And all but two or three of them (who go back to Central-America days) are brand new activists. Greater yet, without even focusing on it, we've achieved something that some of us labored for in the '60s but could not achieve: independent (but linked) student and community groups. Thirteen ISU students went to the Washington Demo, and they all came back revved up by it! They usually send one or two of their members to our meetings to maintain mutual knowledge.
Moreover yet another independent group has taken the initiative to set up a local web site to announce all local progressive activities. I presume things like this are going on all around the country. There wouldn't have been 30 to 50 thousand people in D.C. without a lot of local work, mostly on campuses perhaps, but also elsewhere.
Carrol