>>no, it was a reaction to your claim that we do nothing and lack of
>>political participation is, apparently, solely the result of the
>>individual's selfish, apathetic decision-making. i'm actually the kind of
>>person who enjoys doing the grunt work since it can fit more easily into my
>>schedule. i think it's bizarre that you assume jon does nothing. why should
>>you assume that? and even if he does, maybe he's put in his time and would
>>like a break. maybe he's taking care of an ill partner or child or who
>>knows what he or anyone else here might be doing.
>
>If you bother to read my posting you will discover the following:
>
>***
>Jon Johanning wrote:
>
>"I'm just waiting for someone else with the requisite skills to
>get a party organized to the point that it could have a real impact on
>the political situation, and then I would be happy to consider voting
>for its candidate."
>
>In short, you want to dictate what the radical third party does but you're
>not going to play any role in helping to build it.
His entire quote, which you conveniently edited (and even if you hadn't edited, what you left was more than plenty to point to something you don't seem to want to acknowledge) was this: "There just isn't a political party to the left of the DP that could organize its way out of a paper bag, and you and everyone else knows it. So you will say, "Why don't you drop everything you are doing and go out and organize one?" Because I'm not a party organizer -- that's not one of my many talents. Sorry for not being more of an "activist," but personally I'm more of a follower than a leader in this sort of thing. I'm just waiting for someone else with the requisite skills to get a party organized to the point that it could have a real impact on the political situation, and then I would be happy to consider voting for its candidate."
Clearly, Jon's concluded he's not much good at being an organizer. This is evident from the entire quote. But also evident even in your snippet, so why ignore him when he claims that he hasn't "the requisite skills" for the task?
I found it hard to understand what your objection might be. Having participated in enough organizing around the single-issue politics you deride (though I'd disagree that they were single-issue as I understood what I was doing), I assumed you objected because, in fact, not everyone has to be a leader, that even ground-up organizing needs followers, people who don't mind doing the background support work, people who might excel at the variety of skills that are needed for such an effort. I was hoping your objection might be that there's a role for people to play in third party organizing that has nothing to do with (necessarily) running for office yourself.
I don't think Jon wants to dictate anything. He wants to criticize. I don't think you have to be a "leader" or "activist" or "organizer" to be an effective critic, any more than I think one has to be a talented performer in order to criticize a performance.
>I made the claim that Jon "does nothing" in helping to organize a third
>party because that's the fact: he says the he is waiting for "someone
>else" to do it.
Given that you ignored Jon's reasons (and Doug's), is it safe to conclude that you dismiss them as disingenuous rationalizations? I was hoping, originally, that it was at least that you wanted to point out that there are other roles for people to play when it comes to "organizing."
I'd also point out that you claimed to single out Jon's post b/c it's indicative of Lame Brained Onanists, in general. IOW, it wasn't enough to examine a particular claim, but take a swipe at an entire group of people, insisting that Jon represents a what you believe is a significant chunk of Lame Brained Onanists. Could be true, but I got the impression that there are a variety of reasons why people don't organize third parties here. Two major reasons comes to mind:
1. A difference in principle about how effective social change comes about. These folks could engage you in argument as to why tey disagree with this statement, "effective radical politics is necessarily oriented not towards protesting state power but towards participation within it." But there differences, it seems to me, would be ultimately about fundamentally different premises -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
2. Lives that are too demanding to allow for 'grunt work' participation, let alone getting actively involved in organizational leadership.
>As for for the larger question of when and where it is effective to get
>involved in third party politics-with the Greens or some other group,
>that's the subject of the piece I referred to:
>
>http://prorev.com/whyiran.htm
I'll be daymumed! I see nothing in there about the fact that some people make better followers (or feel unable to do any more than vote) due to life circumstances.
>I don't imagine discussing the matter with you would be productive given
>a) the contempt you display when you are forced to think and b) your
>demonstrated inability to read.
"Mr. Pivner elevated himself on one narrow ham and broke wind, a soft interrogative sound which went unanswered. then he sagged and stared at the newspaper, untroubled by the notion that this might have been a demon leaving its residence inside him."
Kelley
Thanks John, the Scrappy Outsider routine never disappoints.