[lbo-talk] Cultural Change?

[R]

unsuccessful radicalism, if it's indeed the real problem, is radicalism
that's lost touch with the grass roots and fallen in love with itself.
rather than critique the moribund communist party, people need to look at
the equally out of touch democratic party, dominated and controlled by its
right wing.  as usual, the dems play both ends against the middle.  on one
side are the "liberal" democrats co-opting and taking credit for the
successes of the left.  on the other, the rightwing democrats, using the
liberals to present a facade of "compassionate" democrats while they cut
deals with the same economic special interests manipulating the republican
party.

let's not forget, LBJ's refusal to endorse Humphrey for president until the
last possible moment did more to get nixon elected than a weakened left.
the democratic party's traditional contribution and dedication to weakening
the left must not be overlooked.   the hapless McGovern campaign is a
treasured memory -- an attempt to get a centrist-right party to follow a
liberal leader.  worse than the rise of reaganism is the democrat's
acceptance of it.  we didn't get a teflon president without democrats
wanting to hide their complicity in right wing actions.

neither must people forget the concentrated attacks of government operations
like COINTELPRO and the murder in the streets of liberal, left, and civil
rights leaders had a lot to do with the "weakening" of the left.  after
these murders were allowed to slide by without proper investigations and
legal procedures, it was very hard to find anyone in politics wanting to
commit suicide by running on the left, backed by a strong enough power base
to create attention.   the country lost it's moral compass, as the saying
goes.

R



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nathan Newman" <nathanne at nathannewman.org>
To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Cultural Change?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>


R wrote:
>the period of the 1960s and 70s was an embryonic period for today's far
>right.  barry goldwater looks almost liberal today.  during that period,
>militants, liberals, lefties, etc, were constantly being "warned" by the
>powers that be about "backlash."  reagan was a product of that backlash.
>and so is shrub.  we're living in that backlash.

-"World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 contributed
-mightily to the advent of fascism..."
   - Samantha Power in yesterday's NYT Book Review

-So let's not be successfully radical, since it'll just provoke a
-backlash. Better to mutter complaints from the sidelines.
-Doug

For those of us who see neither the "Days of Rage" nor the Bolsheviks as a
shining success for the left, the message is don't tolerate stupidity
labelled as "leftism."

Real success-- such as the labor organizing of the 1930s and the civil
rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s led to increasing progressive
strength.  A stronger labor movement helped pass the New Deal; the Civil
Rights movement helped build power for the Great Society.