>This kind of argument (what in the abstract Washington "can and should
>do") is one of the political positions that makes building an effective
>left difficult. In so far as it is a kind of attitude that is pervasive
>among those who (in a friend's formulation) are _for_ but not _of_ the
>left it represents the attitude which left activists _must_ overcome if
>we are to build a left in the u.s.
We could do without the checking of identity papers here - are you *really* an authentic leftist, or do you just play one on the Internet. It's ugly and divisive and just the sort of thing you condemn later on in the post. I don't see how you can proceed in politics without some idea of what you'd like to accomplish. Subordinating agenda to questions of tactics and strategy makes no sense, and will win you no allies.
>And this is relevant, highly relevant, to the debate Marta has
>triggered. I have so much respect for Marta's work and for what, over
>the years on e-lists, I have learned from here, that out of that respect
>I am not reading her current posts at all. It is too discouraging. The
>disabled, or any other strata/segment of the working class can achieve
>its aims/needs only through solidarity with all other segments/strata of
>the class. Marta's current arguments clearly destroy solidarity and
>hence injure the cause of the disabled -- if fact, the cause of all the
>exploited, oppressed, and excluded. I can't bear to witness such a sad
>sight.
I am reading them, and it is indeed very sad to see someone who's done a lot to get me and others to take questions of disability rights seriously now lashing out against another marginalized group of people.
Doug