[lbo-talk] What's at stake?

Shane Taylor s-t-t at juno.com
Mon Nov 17 18:41:50 PST 2003


Shane Taylor wrote:
> Funny how, if I assume representative democracy is
> objectively counter-revolutionary, The Revolutionaries'
> hostility to voting Bush out in '04 makes tremendous sense.
> To vote is to believe that even minor positive change can
> occur this side of the Revolution, and by bouji means.
>
> What's at stake is the revolutionary identity.

Carrol Cox wrote:
> The original context for that Bullshit is important. I was
> responding to a post which made the faturous assumption
> that the only reason for not supporting the DP was some
> kind of super-revolutionism. Back in the '70s a friend of
> mine in the Spanish department would drop by my office
> every so often to talk politics. I would chat along until the
> point at which he would begin to pronounce what I as a
> Marxist must necessarily believe. At that point I would
> usually say, "Get the fuck out of my office Gordon." (He
> was a good-natured fellow and never took offense.) The
> poster I was responding to had clearly either never read
> any of my posts or else held such rigid illusions re what a
> "revolutionary" MUST believe, that he merely saw on the
> screen what he expected to see there.
>
> Hence the Bullshit!

I said you're engaged in identity politics, as is Yoshie. Identity politics as in the defense of empty rituals at the expense of an effective political move. It is more about posturing than orthodoxy.

Even under Bush you remain ever hostile to the full exercise of what representative democracy this country has. Hence my snarky "objectively counter-revolutionary" crack. It's as if the very idea of making use of the ballot box for real change is objectionable to some radicals.

Perhaps our big difference is in the recognition (or denial) of the fact that under Bush, progressives of the broadest definition are on the offensive along many fronts. And that, say, Dean is appreciably better than Bush, which isn't hard to do. There's nothing voting against the Dems will do to weaken the duopoly or strengthen another party. So, I say go for the Dems*. In these circumstances, all else is electoral chastity.

There is a tremendous amount of circumlocution around Doug's point: ousting Bush means greater breathing room for even the activist left. In response, you and Yoshie seem to flip Doug's point on its head: electoral politics is the bloodletting of the activist left. As you have said in different contexts, Carrol, this is bad faith. It denies the reality of Republican rule. (note: I didn't say fascism)

-- Shane

* - Yes, I'm campaigning.

________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list