'I'm always curious when I hear that anyone who works inside the Dems lacks theory or a strategy'
I am curious, too. What is the strategy of working within the Democratic Party - move it leftwards to achieve reforms through the state; force a split between the more advanced workers and the reactionary leadership; expose the inability of reformist policies by putting them in power?
'Working inside the Dems' implies working to some distinctive purpose than the mainstream view of the Democratic Party - but that also implies some dissimulation. Are you saying one thing to people on the doorstep while you canvass, but another thing to the activists within?
My experience of those 'working within the UK Labour Party does indeed suggest that entryism is a barrier to theoretical clarity - for the simple reason that it involves saying one thing to one group of people, and something else to publicly. That's not a healthy situation in which to develop theory, because you are not exposing your ideas to the democratic evaluation of your peers. (On the history of Civil Rights, forgive my ignorance, the Civil Rights movement I remember was at war with the Labour Government here.)
Doug writes:
'Harvey's highly qualified support for Kerry comes from an evaluation of the Bush admin's record and the political configurations and possibilities of the present day.'
Well, yes, but its so tortuous an argument that you have to say that the conclusions are entirely at odds with the analysis. In The New Imperialism, Harvey makes a powerful case (though not one I entirely agree with) that US capitalism is addicted to oil, decadent, and driven to exploit the developing world. That would seem to preclude reform, seeing the problem not as policy, but in the very nature of the US. Then, arbitrarily he adds on the proposition (unsupported in the prior analysis) that a 'New Deal' style policy could reverse the inevitable collapse, through a massive increase in consumption (raising a whole warehouse full of problems - not least that there has indeed been something of an increase in US purchasing power over the last 25 years, already, or that it would seem to imply a greater consumption of material goods taken from the third world, at least in his account, etc etc). This then becomes a case for a wholly transformed democratic party being supoprted at the ballot. Since no such Democratic Party appears, Harvey plumps for a wholly militaristic Democratic candidate, who, as far as anyone can see is dedicated to perpetuating precisely the policy of political control over the Third World that Harvey sees as in the grain of the US's exploitation of 3rd World resources! What a mess. What dishonesty. Why is he allowed to get away with putting this contradictory pudding of arguments without anyone taking the time to see if any of it holds together? Why? Because there is no tradition of honest criticism on the left.
Doug also write:
Your support for Nader seems to come from the desire for a pure gesture, since I've yet to hear a convincing argument that voting for a lone wolf candidate who has repeatedly distanced himself from efforts to organize an independent Green Party is part of any long-term strategy more worked out than "breaking with the Dems."'
Which sounds good, but I don't see why supporting the Dems is anything more of a pure gesture, if you do not agree with them. Maybe you do agree with them. In which case, a fulsome support seems appropriate. But if, as I sense, there is a difference of opinion, why would you hide it at the one time that the whole country is most interested in political alternatives.
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040818/5caaebec/attachment.htm>