[lbo-talk] Why Jews Hate Republicans, Part XVIV

John Lacny jlacny at earthlink.net
Thu Dec 9 15:43:07 PST 2004


Wojtek writes:


> This means that about a quarter or maybe a third of the
> population will be attracted to either right-wing or left
> wing-ideologies pretty much independently of any
> "external" influences, such as situation, agitation,
> conventional expectations, etc. By the same virtue, the
> political orientation of the rest of the population (70-
> 80%) is situational - that is - it depends on:

. . . and no listing of CLASS as an explanatory factor.

Sorry to be the old Marxist curmudgeon, but class analysis does indeed count for something. Despite the large numbers of working-class whites (since race -- in this country such an important element of class -- is also a major explanatory category) who voted for Bush, the election still reflected class divides, and that shows up in the numbers. I suppose this begs the question, since we're trying to explain why so many people vote -- and engage with politics generally -- in a manner contrary to their class interests, but the fact remains that class is a major explanatory factor for voting and political behavior.

A while ago Wojtek took exception to my characterization of him as a misanthropist -- he said that in any given society there is a portion of the population that is "beyond all hope," but that it varies with historical circumstances. Fair enough -- but that once again begs the question: what does Wojtek's outlook really explain? He believes that an especially large portion of US Americans are "beyond all hope," but why? Because, well, they're beyond all hope. Leftists might as well not try, because these people are beyond all hope. I haven't seen much in the way of analysis from Wojtek as to WHY this is, or what we can do to change it -- there's almost no room for agency, which makes his outlook a more realistic, less ridiculous, more entertaining, but at times no less annoying version of Carrol Cox's fatalism.


> Anyone who believes that the political tables can be turned
> around simply by more effective liberal "organizing" i.e.
> agitation

No, agitation and organizing are not the same thing. Organizing means building real institutions capable of building power and educating people -- agitation is necessarily involved in this, but agitation alone gets us stuff like the 5,000 Crackpot Stationary Rally from last October. I am not interested in that.

- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com

Tell no lies, claim no easy victories



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list