> In the USA? Where unpaid family leave is a great social advance?
Again, if we can do better than the lesser evil, then why is *that* the lesser evil? I guess the greater good is boundless. So, why not *paid* family leave, Nader for president, or -- better yet -- no more presidents? Why settle when we can have it all just by wishing it?
Miles wrote:
> But the question Doug raises is this: is political support for Obama a
> "real means of struggle" for the working class?
And working people are answering that very question. The answer is not unanimous. People seldom give an unanimous answer to a question this complex. Short of that, there's an obvious plurality -- if not clear majority -- of the politically active working people choosing Dem:
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/stand.html
That's *their* real means of struggle at this point. Warts and all.
So, if we have no interests separate from those of working people as a whole; if we are not into creating sects for working people to join at our behest; if we are not into conforming the movement to some out-of-our-hair sectarian principle; if what distinguishes us from other segments of the class is our emphasis on the common interests of the class as a whole, regardless of background or origin; if all that is true, then what's our next step?
How do we better promote the interest of the working people as a whole in our case? To be clear, I am not saying that we should abandon our interests as we perceive them, give up on our ideas, refrain from criticizing Obama's stances. The real issue is whether -- as we continue to struggle for what we deem worthy of our struggle, as we stick to our grand radical ideas, as we blast Obama's stances, etc. -- we stand as outsiders to the political process that has placed him where he currently is, or not.
Moreover, I'm not saying that, by standing outside of this process, we'll be damned and our soul lost irrevocably. All I'm saying is that it's better, significantly better actually, if we accompanied the politically active segment of our class and did the infighting, for as long as working folks, collectively, deemed it necessary.
Why significantly better? Because having in the political process people who can see the bigger picture can only speed up our collective political learning? Yes, fighting from the inside follows its own set of rules and strictures. But, ultimately, nothing requires that we check our interests our ideas at the door. It only requires a commitment to collective deliberation and action.
> As I read the Marx quote again, it occurs to me that Julio's
> interpretation should be inverted. Given the historical context, the
> assumption that an Obama presidency would systematically support the
> interests of the working class is at best an "idealistic fantasy".
That has an easy solution: Stop assuming that an Obama presidency will systematically support the interests of the working class. The only assumption we can safely make is that, as a general (but not absolute) rule, people will struggle to meet their needs, to advance their interests in the best way they can, given conditions. The policies of this country, the effects of capitalism, etc. are not going to evaporate. As a result, the human needs that arise from this context are not going to disappear either. If an Obama presidency doesn't serve the purpose of the people, then we will -- sooner or later -- get it and set out to forge better means to their ends.
Again, how better help each other learn from this process? As detached critics or as committed activists?
Answer to a possible objection/question: Yes, you can be a dutiful activist against the war, for universal health care, for socialism, etc. without joining the Obama camp. You can do a lot of good if you just stick to that and that only. My claim is that your work is not only not mutually exclusive, but would in fact be reinforced by joining the Obama camp (or, less so, Nader's or McKinney's) and taking part in the actually-existing electoral process.
> Thus
> it is the uncritical Obama enthusiasts--not the Obama "skeptics"--who
> are analogous to the anarchists Marx ridicules.
Are the Obama "enthusiasts" standing by the fence, politically paralyzed, while the "skeptics" are taking collective action? If so, then you're right. It's okay to invert one's interpretation, as long as we don't invert reality.
The means of struggle (the "weapon") that the Obama "enthusiasts" are proposing are electoral politics, the Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign. Weapons drawn from society as it is. So, what are the means of struggle that the skeptics are proposing to the rest of us? And how are those means of struggle mutually exclusive with electoral politics, the Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign?