My crudely Leninist response is, the left is at the same time too principled, and not principled enough. It is too principled when it criticises without offering solutions, and moralises without political content. For example, if you believe that people are causing global warming, it is not enough to say that we must consume less. The left needs to be able to offer an alternative that meets human needs. Zizek talks of 'beautiful soul' leftists, who carp from the side and are smugly sure of their own principles, but who can offer nothing as an alternative. It is not principled enough when it seeks political influence outside any strategic context. For example, when it gets over-excited by election to the school board, or sees every demonstration as a sign of the left's renewed strength. Or when it endorses the Democrats as an alternative to Bush. Supporting Kerry isn't going to buy the left any influence. I too am at a loss for an alternative strategy, but as a start I suggest acknowledging and debating the differences among the 'left', rather than pretending that we're in any kind of alliance. Second (and again from Zizek), I don't see the way forward as a stagist approach building up from school boards. Sometimes politics can take surprising turns. And putting something truly radical onto the agenda can succeed against the expectations of all the sensible 'realists'. Zizek gives the example of the referendum on divorce in Italy, which the CP opposed because the people weren't ready. It was passed by a landslide. And then there's the October Revolution, of course! I'm not saying that we're on the verge of anything like this. I think the current prognosis is as bad as Justin suggests. But something else might not be as far away as we fear. --James James Greenstein --- andie nachgeborenen wrote: From: andie nachgeborenen Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 05:35:11 -0700 (PDT) To: lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org Subject: [lbo-talk] Doomed If your aim is > to build a political party that is an electoral arm > of social > movements such as an anti-war movement, a Green > movement, etc. that > have political agendas for social change at the > national level (which > cannot be addressed, much less achieved, at local > levels), it doesn't > make sense to run candidates only for school boards > and city councils. > Tell it to the far right. After getting smashed in '64, they regrouped, took over the local school boards and city counsels . . . . and here we are. I don't pretend to know what to do in our circumstances. I am every bit as cynical about the Democrats as Yoshie and Brad. No, I do not think they can be a vehicle for socialism. Or movement-building. Or social democratic or even New Deal-Great society programs. No, I do not think that "left" can take them over or split them. Quite apart from the Dem's own intransigence, the left is incompetent. I also think that third party activities are a waste of time -- with the US electoral system and its first past the post, winner take all structure, there is no chance for a third party -- the last successful one we had was the GOP in the 1850s. Especially at the national level -- contrarry to what Yoshie says -- a third party activity is merely protest activity. Locally you might be able to win something. Even, as in Vermont, a US House seat. Yoshie has this fantasy of uniting what she imagines to be the 10 or 20% of voters who are roughly in "our" ballpark ina hard left party that is not openly socialist but is efferctively so. But she's nor serious -- we can't even united the so-called organized left that is actually socialist -- all 5000 or so of us. For the rest, real politics requires real compomise, and the left Y wants to unite is not willing to give up anything. All its positions are principled. No compromise on full gay rights, abortion rights, affirmative action, higher taxes, anti-military attitudes -- not even on guns, prayer in schools, ritual patiotism, or even backing away from thinly veiled Marxist vocabulay. Plus this left, partly because of its hard line, has no actual prfactical experience doing anything political, even serving on a school board. So, apart from the fact that we can't expect anyone to go along if (a) we can't agree minimally among ourselves, (b) we won't compromise with anyone else, there is also the point that (c) we're not qualified to serve on a city council, much less the Congress or in the White House. So, I am starting to sound like Woj. As long as things continue this way we are fucked. The Dems have no solutions, though they are maginally (or in the current cycle, whatever Yoshie & Brad say, consiferably) less awful than the GOP. But we have no hope, no prosspects, no ideas, and no ability. Ultimately I think that the logjam will break, and people will organize something independent both of the Dems and we fossils -- either that or we are doomed. I mean, spiraling down to William Gibson's Sprawl. A cheery thought for the day. I'd like the left to surprise me. I wish I had some better ideas to offer it, I wish I could get its attention for the few ideas I have. Meanwhile, I'm going to Ohio to organize for Kerry around election day. jks __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk