Nathan Newman writes:
> Yes, they could be all more organization-oriented in building
> working class movements. They need to take organization-
> building and institution-building a bit more seriously, but then
> they are not alone in that.
-But I've thought about this a bit, and I realize what I have found -frustrating about their politics: to the extent that they organize, they -organize around ideology and not around interests... All "special -interests" are potential roadblocks to their Jeffersonian-idealist -conception of the free citizen making interest-free decisions about what's -best for the public good.
I guess I don't see it. A lot of folks, including Kos, attack "single issue" groups, but that's slightly different from "special interests" who often have a range of issues but seek benefits for their group. There is a lot of hard-headed discussion about appealing to different interest groups and how to mobilize them, but part of the argument is that "single issue" groups shoot themselves in the head by not engaging in broader coalition politics against the rightwing.
Yes, most Kossacks are not Marxists but they are hardly the old "goo good" types looking for pure policy. That's one reason I like them in general. I find far more of the Jeffersonian-idealists among the LBO-style and Naderite leftists who can't bear to think in coalition or pragmatic terms. Any compromise with a moderate special interest group for broader pragmatic progressive gain is seen as a sell-out with that branch of the left. Instead, all policy must remain clean and unsullied by political compromise.
Most Kossacks are willing to compromise-- they just demand to see cash on the barrell on what is being gained from the approach.
-- Nathan Newman