Nathan Newman wrote:
>But I didn't hear anything interesting in Zizek's piece, just moralism, no
>strategy. And the drumbeat of moralism without strategy by many on the
>left
>is the problem. You have antiwar marches without strategy, and people
>then wonder why people stop showing up. And the list can go on.
-A piece of writing has to have a "strategy" to be interesting or -useful? The standards for an essay are different from those for a -march.
Why? Are intellectual essays just entertainment. Maybe that's my problem with so much of what passes for left thought-- it feels unconstrained by any need to be useful.
-You're always touting the organizations in the trenches everyday. -They're full of good people trying hard. But it's not working. Our -side racks up loss after loss. Don't you think we should ask -ourselves why?
Yes-- and folks I know do so everyday and in far more interesting, useful and, yes, even entertaining ways than Zizek's column.
And while I think folks in the trenches need to improve their strategies, our side doesn't just rack up "loss after loss." We lose some but we also win some. Just a few obvious places we're winning in the states -- minimum wage, Plan B contractaception availability, alternative energy standards, and a range of health care bills.
Just today, the Massachusetts house and senate passed a comprehensive health care bill. It's not single payer or even a broad-based employer mandate, but through a combination of subsidies and employer assessments, it's a decent step forward to work with: http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2006/04/04/mass_bill_requires_health_insurance/
Obviously, I think we need to expand these victories and deepen them, but if folks can't evaluate what made the victories work, you usually don't have much to say about how to stop the defeats. Instead all you get on much of the left are moralistic condemnations and negative wailings about "loss after loss."
Nathan Newman