Michael Hoover wrote:
>
>
> so message header should read: *myth of a left*, agreed... mh
That would be better. I've never settled on the best formulation. I've used "coherent left" as an alternative to something like "Hegemonic Left Party," which we probably neither want nor could get. While there was certainly no single organized left in the '60s, for a few moments there we seemed to be almost on the brink of enough implicit coherence, enough shared direction among the multiplicity of programs, activities, groups, so that it was not _too_ mythological to speak of "the left" or "a left." Its rapid collapse probably show that the hope was a delusion, but even as a delusion it gave one a sort of image, however inchoate, of what might be and of what needed to be.
My concern now is dual. 1) As long as the leftists spontaneously accept this "myth of a left" they will be unequal even to beginning the task of building such a left. 2) Acceptance of the myth nurtures ridiculous, even offensive, "criticisms" of "A left" that doesn't exist. "Why doesn't The Left do this?" "Why doesn't The Left do that?" "No wonder The Left is not getting anyplace." "The Left lacks humor." "The Left is elitist." "Why doesn't The Left pay more attention to ordinary people?" "The Left doesn't have any good writers." On & On. All empty self-indulgent baby talk, because that "Left" simply doesn't exist. We have to create it through struggle, and NO ONE has _the formula_ for that struggle.
And just incidentally, the lack of "A Left," a lack felt but not recognized by those who accept the myth, leads to such silliness as trying to treat LBO-Talk as though it were The Party. A good number of posts the last few days would only make minimal sense if LBO-Talk were a disciplined party with a central committee and a formal set of principles of unity.
Carrol