> The older I get, the less cool I think it is to be alieanted. But,
> really, some things deserve at least a little distance. Someone wrote
> me offlist yesterday saying "You really hate Obama, don't you?" I
> don't hate him. But he's just a Democrat, not some quasi-
> revolutionary semi-Messiah.
Aside from the "new" discussion on LBO-Talk on the "abolition" of money,e tc., this reminds me of the old controversy between Brecht and Eisenstein. This is the way I paraphrase it: Eisenstein (famous for depicting strong, good-looking workers and ugly, evil-looking capitalists) argued that you take art as is and use it to rally the masses around the right causes. Brecht replied that art had to be revolutionized. For example, communist artists shouldn't use the cheap trick of manipulating the emotions of the audience. Instead, communist art should appeal and excite the critical thinking of the audience, giving them enough emotional distance for them to sharpen their critical mind, question the artist's offer, and ultimately get involved in recreating the world artistically on their own. Doing otherwise, Brecht argued compelingly, would only reinforce the subordination of people to the powers that be.
Of course, both were right and wrong, if you stretch their arguments and turn them into absolutes. Yes, we have to start now (if not now, when?) to dissolve the division between mental and physical labor in art, politics, the economy, what have you. But dissolving this division of labor once and for all -- a division of labor rooted in history like little else -- is a very long-run and winding undertaking. In fact, only the cumulation of a number of much smaller progressive steps, including some that may temporarily enhance the cleavage between thinking and doing, will ever enable us to dissolve the division altogether. And while this division of labor subsists, the danger of going back to all the old (existing) shit will remain.
Fine, but there's no vaccine against this problem. There's no political or organizational or ideological formula that can preempt it. Ever. We just have to grapple with it over and over and over again. Hopefully, as we grapple with it repeatedly, we'll be in incrementally better positions to make inroads into the definitive solution.
In the current conditions of the U.S., expecting a mass movement in the direction of more unity of the working class, that has as a precondition lack of charisma by the leader(s), a low degree of personality cult, etc., is a recipe for political paralysis. It's like a young friend of mine, who recently decided to "drop out of the dating game" because the guys she's met don't have the attributes of her ideal "soul mate." I don't have the guts to tell her this, but -- by definition -- "soul mates" can only exist by chance. If she values the goodies of a relationship, she's going to have to allow for the tedious task of educating and being educated, with no prior guarantees of success.
> It's the intensity of the delusions
> surrounding him that surround him that drive me crazy. He's not going
> to dismantle the American empire, or move the gini index more than a
> few tenths of a basis point, if that.
I don't know. In principle, I wouldn't disagree with you. Again, my argument doesn't hinge on Obama's personality.