Part of the problem I feel is a blindsighted-ness within much of the left toward the apparatus' developed beyond the Democratic Party precisely in fear of the same kind of collective resistance -- from sit-ins at welfare offices, to urban uprisings, to shutting down campuses -- that shook the state between the 1960s and early 1970s. In particular, I am referring to what a number of folks are calling the non-profit industrial complex, which includes the jobs many of those in the institutional left and outside of the democratic party (as well as in the services), whose loyalties to government and private funders directly interfere with promoting the kind of organizing that might actually accomplish something. I don't think it's possible to conceive of the rapid rise in non-profits during the 1970s and onward, without understanding how intensely both capitalists and the state were shaken by movements under Keynesianism. And I don't think it's really
possible to try explain responses to the current state of affairs without a very serious analysis of the role of non-profits, from services onward.
The other difficulty, though, is much of the left's obsession with spectacular mass mobilizations, which only sometimes have impacts, but often get discussed as if they 'get the goods,' relatively on their own. At risk of putting myself in the firing line, I struggle when I think of major anti-war mobilizations in recent years that were laughed at by those in power, and the dwindling march numbers since.
Of the mass mobilizations in the last decade in the U.S., arguably the two most important were against the WTO (1999) and against the Sensenbrenner bill (2006). The former was less a birthing of anything than it was a -- clear -- linking of a global movement to the U.S., the most noted tactics of which came from decades of organizing in the anti-nuclear and AIDS movements. But the explicitly anti/alter-glob summit mobilization protest movement here, while being part of discrediting global capitalist institutions (with the majority of the power in the movement actually in the global south, not the north), dwindled after a few years -- largely from the fact that mass mobilizations have serious, and very exhausting limits (I remember this very personally) and they often times don't actually have much of an impact, though they certainly lead to burnout pretty quickly.
The 2006 resistance against Sensenbrenner was a stunning sign of what a mass mobilization can do, but I view those actions in light of the very serious, long-term migrant organizing throughout the U.S. -- which was able to evince a short general strike in some areas and thus actually show a potential threat, on top of a willingness to use direct action and constant pressure in small towns and major cities across the states (which was also a crucial aspect of the 'alter-globalization movement'). The role of the non-profits in migrant struggles here in the States is less-often discussed from a critical lense (at least as I've seen it), but I've seen at least some some evidence of publicly voiced concerns with the role of funders in the movements (and of some of the main non-profits themselves, see note below for one essay on this type of thing). To me, in this sense, these actions make me want to understand the ways in which people are using non-profits,
as well as subverting and transcending them (much in the way that folks like Rawick and Glaberman used to discuss wc self-activity and action outside of and against the unions) for their needs.
There's of course a host of other issues in terms of the left's role in "absorbing" social struggle: absorption of radicals into the academy and knowledge production largely for the purposes of CV's; a condescension toward other, lower-waged working class people that is often startling, and, of course, the belief in swaying the Democratic Party (from ACORN through many others), on local and national levels.
But one other issue that occurs to me is this belief that Obama is some sort of neutral character who simply needs to be "swayed" by movements, because his 'real' agenda is actually that of 'the people,' whatever that means. He's not, as most people on this list would likely agree with (I think). But one way brilliant way he and the DP have done actually gotten traction and buy-in for this line is by their utilization of institutionalized "community organizing," in the campaign and afterward. Again, I think this raises important questions for how "resistance" can function right now, with a particular eye toward mechanisms of co-optation beyond those of the DP and the major business unions (though those are important parts of it).
In short, part of the problem I feel in discourse on the left right now (with some very notable exceptions) is a reluctance to really deal with the fact that the mechanisms of capture and control are institutionalized far beyond the Democratic Party, including not only the major unions, but also many of the non-profits, including many of those dedicated to "grassroots organizing," and "community organizing" -- terms which lose much of their powerful meaning when they don't have "teeth." Until we really deal with what this means, 'from the bottom up,' I don't think we're really able to understand what's going on right now.
(for an article looking at the role of funding from one migrant rights struggle, see: http://inthemiddleofthewhirlwind.wordpress.com/liberal-mayors-liberal-funders-a-case-of-racism-classism-and-ideological-warfare/
Best, Craig
--- On Thu, 12/3/09, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
From: shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Obama's betrayal of hope To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 8:05 PM
At 12:40 PM 12/3/2009, Carrol Cox wrote:
> And it is the DP that regularly absorbs and neutralizes so many of those
> who might otherwise give their time and energy to this task of preparing
> for and perhaps 'ignitin' this kind of politcal action.
see. that's where i totally disagree with you. it's like you said about the cons: ignore their asses. they are boring and worthless -- the DP. people who spend their time on the dp -- less than zeroes. who cares. focus on your own shit. make it work. worrying after these other folks? who gives a shit. it is such a waste of time. build a strong local group. build solidarity among one another. as you said long ago, that will be what attracts people to left movement: those people have something going on.
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk