Given that you admit that like anyone else you have no idea what to do about energizing the movement, why don't you stop there rather than denigrating other people for working on trivialities? I don't think "the American left" is a unitary entity that has adopted a line "no privileging" -- in English we'd say "prioritizing." To the extent that everyone has not flocked to your favorite issues, maybe not everyone agrees. Explain to Brian, in plain words, why it doesn't matter that his marriage can't be recognized in the US, and why he should put off worry about this and for how long. Oh, I'm sorry, is that a howl of outrage? I really just wanted an explanation, honestly. I am sure Brian wants one. But I do know that it will not likely to energize the struggle or, national health or against the war if we all forget gay marriage, or do you disagree? Why isn't that economic activity, btw, since marriage is primarily a bundle of economic rights? Just asking. If that's what made it important. Writing off gay marriage will also lose us the support of many gays, who might feel differently if you had a reason to think that abandoning them until whenever would materially contribute to ending the war, for example. But maybe you think there are too few active gays for that to matter? While we are at it, what other issues aren't important and should be set aside till we get back to them while we work on the really important stuff?
--- "Mr. WD" <mister.wd at gmail.com> wrote:
> Clearly there have always been people on the left
> who have been
> dedicated to working to improve the direct material
> interests of the
> working class, and many of them are young. Actually,
> it seems that
> with the emergence of USAS in the late 1990s, there
> has been an
> _increase_ in the number of young people working on
> economic issues
> (and yes, I define "economic issues" very broadly to
> include all of
> the things you mentioned -- including anti-war
> activity).
>
> Maybe I didn't read the piece carefully enough, but
> nothing in it
> suggested to me that Taibbi had any problem with,
> say, USAS or anyone
> who is organizing against the war (aside from his
> comment about
> ANSWER's Che t-shirts). Instead -- and in a
> counterproductive tone,
> I'll agree -- Taibbi criticizes the American left's
> total aversion to
> privileging any kind of good political activity over
> other good
> political activity. Like you, I can offer no clear
> answers at the
> moment about what The Solution to the American
> left's predicament
> might be. However, isn't it at least fair to ask
> the question as to
> whether it is more urgent to, say, agitate for
> universal health care
> than, say, advocating for calling civil unions to be
> recognized as
> "marriages"? And yet, in many circles within the
> American left,
> merely raising this possibility is going to evoke
> howls of righteous
> indignation.
>
> We need to start a conversation about which issues
> are most important
> when it comes to advancing the long-term political
> goals I think
> most/all of us share. I'll go out on a limb and say
> those are 1)
> stop. the. war. and 2) amnesty/citizenship for all
> illegal immigrants
> now, as this would substantially empower those on
> the lowest rungs of
> the working class.
>
> -WD
>
>
> On 6/15/07, andie nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe I wasn't clear. (1) I wasn't aware that "the
> > left," including long-haired (it's back in now, it
> > seems) college kids had ever abandoned economics.
> Even
> > back in when I was a poofy haired college kid, as
> I
> > mentioned, one of the two big left activities on
> my
> > sleepy and conservative Ivy league college campus
> in
> > the late 1970s was union organizing rights. (The
> other
> > was anti-apartheid.) Through the late 190s and
> today,
> > "Seattle" type work around globalization,
> > anti-sweatshop work, living wage organizing, etc.
> and
> > the like have been very lively among students in
> past
> > decade.
> >
> > (2) It's not clear what work around "economics"
> > involves. I belong to a group (Solidarity) that
> has a
> > long time commitment to "industrialization." Lots
> of
> > the members "went into industry" and have done
> good
> > work in their unions, or working or union
> democracy.
> > But they haven't exactly rocked the working class.
> > Others I know just got sidelined into dead end
> > assembly line jobs -- if they could keep them. Or
> is
> > what Doug does work around "economics" -- he edits
> > LBO, writes books with economics stuff in them.
> Does
> > that count? Is it "economics" if I teach
> employment
> > discrimination but not if I teach civil rights, or
> is
> > employment discrimination too much about class and
> > sex? Is it "economics: if I teach white collar
> crime
> > but not if I teach about habeas corpus?
> >
> > (3) You can't seriously be suggesting (I guess you
> > can, Richard Rorty was, and I used to yell at him
> for
> > this) that we've "done enough for now" by way of
> > fighting sexism, racism (and these aren't economic
> > concerns??!!), homophobia, and -- today, when the
> > government is actively and openly practicing
> torture,
> > detention with charges, and criminalization of
> vast
> > swathes of speech -- repression of political
> speech!?
> > That with an illegal war (waged, in some manner or
> > fashion because of oil) that nobody seems inclined
> to
> > stop, that we've done enough antiwar work? "For
> now."
> > We can take this stuff up when? Maybe when union
> > density gets back up to 15% in the private sector,
> or
> > in 2025, whichever comes first, or what?
> >
> > (4) Fact is, basic point. Nobody knows what to do.
> > People like Rorty who think we should drop
> everything
> > and work in the progressive wing of the Democrat
> > Party, such as it is, to promote the immediate
> > material interests of the working class, higher
> wages,
> > better working conditions, more secure retirement
> > benefits and health care (does that count as
> > economic)? no more have a recipe for
> reconstituting
> > some new version of the old New Deal coalition
> than
> > people, if there are any, why say we should work
> only
> > on "lifestyle" issues like abortion rights. If I
> > thought that we could light the fire by, I dunno,
> > industrializing, I'd be all over it in a New York
> > minute. But I don't. Do you?
> >
> > (5) There is nothing wrong with working to improve
> the
> > material well-being of the working class. I'm all
> for
> > it. But Taibbi is wrong to blame the college
> students
> > for failing to do what no one else, including the
> rest
> > of us, have figured out how to do, and which is
> > probably beyond the power of any group other than
> the
> > working class itself to do. That's why a sneer
> like
> > his is not constructive. Neither is it
> constructive or
> > sensible to suggest that Brian is detracting from
> the
> > struggle by focusing on homophobia or bitch by
> > addressing feminism, or me by harping on civil
> > liberties, etc. Taibbi has got a real problem by
> the
> > trail all right, but he doesn't know what to do
> about
> > it any more than anyone else.
> >
> >
> >
> > 9#0
> >
> > --- "Mr. WD" <mister.wd at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/14/07, andie nachgeborenen
> > > <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > formerly the Party of Lincoln! -- but maybe
> civil
> > > > rights is another one of those lifestyle
> things
> > > that
> > > > it's bad for long haired layabouts of
> > > > nose-ring-wearing students to bother about.
> > >
> > > This is a rather disingenuous characterization
> of
> > > what Taibbi was
> > > saying. The piece was not perfect, to be sure,
> but
> > > Taibbi makes a
> > > very good point:
> > >
> > > That point is that it is a happy reality that
> the
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz