> Were these words written by the author of the excellent
> article, "ISO: The Joy of Sects," a few years back?
>
> No, that must have been someone else.
OK, I'll go on record about this. I am always mystified about how that article continues to make the rounds. I don't think it's terribly profound. But at the same time, I would not repudiate it. Maybe I'd tweak a few things here and there (though I can't think of anything specific off the top of my head), but I wouldn't reject it wholesale. And it isn't like there's been a great seachange in my politics since then.
After all, I still disdain Trotskyites. I am only irritated with them at a much higher level, since they have proven time and again that they are interested in nothing but gnatlike irritation of people who are doing real shit. Maybe one thing I'd add -- given that anarchists loved the article for their own sectarian purposes -- is that there are many anarchists I dislike even more than Trots.
I mean after all, at least the Trots were on our side at Kronstadt. (Cymbal crash.) But seriously, folks . . .
Here's the skivvy on my own views, since some people seem so fascinated by them for some reason (and these same people are far too dense to understand the obvious). My views on electoral politics have not undergone any major revisions. I have not "joined the Democratic Party" since then, though of course, I have no idea what "joining the Democratic Party" entails. If it means registering as a Democrat, than I have been "a member of the Democratic Party" since I turned 18. If it means joining the Democratic ward committee, or working for a Democratic Party campaign, I did the latter once in a local race last year, but even that was not a race controlled by the county party apparatus, such as it is (in fact, the candidate ran against the committee-endorsed candidate in the primary), and it was not something I ever would have eschewed before because of some chimerical fetish that an idiot would call a "principle." Some years ago, when a branch of the Trot group Solidarity was forming in my town and I was asked to join, I said I preferred not to, since I didn't agree with the "point of unity" about rejecting "the Democratic Party" on "principle." (The person who wanted to recruit me said that that didn't matter. So much for "principle.")
In the 2000 presidential race, I took a middling position between Gore and Nader, and when near the end it was fairly clear that Gore was going to win Pennsylvania, I voted for Nader. I am not one of those people who blames Nader for the debacle, nor do I make much of an issue of who anyone voted for in 2000 -- because ALL of those issues pale in significance before the most important fact about that election, that it was stolen. That is the one and only issue about 2000, period.
So I have always viewed electoral politics as more of a tactical than a strategic matter, and my views on that have not changed, save that my assessment of certain tactical choices has shifted. I was never very impressed by the Greens, and I vividly remember one debate in particular during the 2000 campaign, where someone from the local DSA debated a Green Party legislative candidate on the subject of the presidential race. The DSA guy mopped the floor with the Green, and I recognized it at the time even though, as I said, I ended up voting for Nader myself. But there is no discernible strategy among the "third party" crowd, and no reason for it that I can see, so now I would not countenance supporting a "third party" effort even in cases where there was no danger of a reactionary victory -- unless there was a clear chance for that progressive "third party" candidate to win (the recent San Francisco mayor's race being a rare case in point). The birkenstocks-and-granola set does not deserve encouragement. So I would say that my theoretical outlook on elections in the specific conditions of the US is that we need something along the lines of the Non-Partisan League. In the 1930s, this organization basically ran several state governments (South Dakota, I think?) operating through both the Democrats and the Republicans. I don't think there are many places in the country where progressives can operate as Republicans these days -- though I wouldn't rule it out -- but I think a Non-Partisan League today would probably be primarily an insurgent force in Democratic primaries that occasionally also backed independent candidates. The operative principle being not the name of the party on the ballot, but the platform and issues endorsed by the Non-Partisan League (or whatever we'd call it).
On the theoretical front, I think Dimitrov has a lot to say, and have always felt that way, even though my ideological/historical sympathies go more in a Bukharin direction.
So that's the story on my politics, for the edification of those who seem so fascinated by them for some reason or another.
And yes, finally, I will reiterate my position on this election. It is the position of every progressive in the country: Bush must be defeated. This was decided long ago, if not before September 11, then certainly in its wake when the reactionaries opened their engines to full throttle. If you are not in favor of Bush's defeat, then you are not doing your job; if you are doing anything to make a Bush victory more likely, then you are a traitor. And that's all there is to it.
- - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
People of the US, unite and defeat the Bush regime and all its running dogs!