rayrena wrote:
>
>
>
> So if there's no such thing as the left, how can anyone be
> called a leftist? Heh.
There are quite a few leftists, in fact probably 10s of thousands, which
is why the problem they all face is soemhow coalescing into some sort of
provisional loose coalition out of which may come both more impact on
national affairs and a clearer basis for theorizing what, in these
post-2d Inernational post-3rd international "A Left" might look like. So
this "heh" is a dud.
>
> Do you really think the U.S. left can stop the war machine
> if it decides some bloodletting is necessary?
I can make minimal sense of this question only by rewording it in terms that have some sort of reference to the actual world: "Do you really think the U.S. leftists can have any impact on the criminal forces that rulke in the U.S. with the overwhelming consent and approval of the populace?"
Of course not, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether leftists can widen their circle of relations through participation in (or creation of) efforts (known to be futile) to impact on national policy. This is how every significan popular movement in modern history has developed: through the repeated futile efforts of scattered resisters to coalesce around various attempts to constrain ruling powers.
I'm not pushing anything at all original: merely summarizing universal practice of the last 200 years.
Carrol