snit snat wrote:
>
>
> Finally, there is the practical problem of a rightwing that doesn't play by
> these rules. The question then is, should we be purists and refuse to play
> their game?
No we shouldn't be purists. {That's one of the words, in fact, the overuse of which has placed certain posters automatically in my trash file. That is, one of its major uses is to conceal the actual question under a fog of irrelevant motive-mongering in debates _within_ the left, broadly defined.) But in this case, we definitely shouldn't be purists but for very practical reasons must not use "rightwing" tactics or methods of argument. We want to reach people who will actively join us in reaching more people. Rightist tactics don't go beyond answers to an opinion poll or spending 60 seconds pulling a lever on a voting machine.
> [clip]
> And, as Michael Pollak pointed out wrt Moore's F911, Moore successfully
> turned the Busheviks weapons against them.
Bush still won the election. Two people who we reached by leafletting outside the theatre are still active members of BNCPJ.
> Do we go with what works?
Of course we do. That's the whole point behind using only principled politics. They work in terms of left organizing. Principled politics now, for example, include rallying behind Churchill, attacking the Lynne Stewart prosecution, and demanding immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Those are the positions which can contribute to building left strength in 2006 and 2007, by which time (one hopes) we can begin to have an impact on public policy -- which we can't, now, no matter how opportunist our policies are. The problem with opportunism is not that its impure or ill-motivated but that it is never opportune.
Carrol