i googled 'communist hypothesis'. (it turns out this is the idea that the free market is not the only way society can be organized. guess my only question on that might be if it can be organized in a different (classless) way, will it still be carbon-based, or instead, silicon based (or something else))---maybe a techno fix is needed, because the effects of the carbon footprint extend beyond al gore's paycheck.
while obama is not the m(a/e)ss(u/ia)h the alternative proposed ('communist hypothesis'---ie a set of academic conferences for tenured white male radicals and cranks) might not be total liberation either.
http://www.nplusonemag.com/fifth-international
i gues nyc has the left forum as the equivalent, and then there is urpe.
--- On Fri, 7/24/09, Dwayne Monroe <dwayne.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Dwayne Monroe <dwayne.monroe at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] An Open Letter to Lefty Friends, Colleagues and Bitter Foes Who're Disappointed by Obama
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 9:31 PM
> Julio Huato asked:
>
> Okay. And then? It's a serious question: What's
> next in your view?
>
> ..............
>
>
>
> A fair question.
>
>
>
> The same question my friends ask after finally conceding I
> wasn't
> temporarily insane when I criticized their blanket
> acceptance of the
> Obama story.
>
> I'll repeat here what I've said to them off-the-cuff.
> I'm neither a
> philosopher nor a political strategist, though there are
> philosophical
> and petite real politik elements to what I have to say.
>
> What follows is a sketch. A beginning.
>
>
> As I see it, several things are needed.
>
>
>
> 1.) Acceptance of defeat (or, learning the real lessons of
> the campaign)
>
>
> During an interview with Doug several years ago, Zizek said
> that the
> left must accept its near total defeat. Not to excuse
> a lack of
> effort, but to achieve what the Pentagon calls
> "situational
> awareness." Without such awareness, your activist
> counter-measures
> are doomed from the start.
>
> What does this mean?
>
> It means that you take the problem's scope seriously
> instead of
> supposing that a "good man" sitting in a powerful office
> can architect
> the profound improvements we want to see (and doubtless
> need, to
> survive long term in a civilized form). I think that
> much of the
> enthusiasm for Obama from truly radical people (by which I
> mean,
> people who've long shown a willingness to follow the money
> and blood
> trails all the way down without pulling the usual liberal
> 'well,
> but...' punches) was inspired by an exhaustion with
> knowing.
>
> Knowing the monster's full size and utter
> ruthlessness. Knowing how
> small we seem when pitted against such an adversary.
> After years --
> decades -- of struggle, it was nice to just feel part of
> something
> positive, large-scale, polished and successful for a
> change.
>
> But this impulse led many astray. Attempts have been
> made to
> rhetorically save appearances by insisting that "pressure
> from below"
> will eventually force this essentially 'good man' to do the
> right
> thing.
>
> But we've seen that, just as with the Bush admin, which
> learned it
> could safely ignore (polite and law abiding) public
> pressure by saying
> a few words about security and proceeding, the Obama team
> respond to
> their disenchanted left-leaning supporters by generally
> mentioning
> pwog-ish ideals, then proceeding to do what they were going
> to do all
> along.
>
> The 'good man' (or woman) theory of politics is built on a
> refusal to
> accept our defeat. Or worse, a belief we can reverse
> our defeat by
> depending upon the good intentions of pleasant people. This
> leads to
> dead-end enthusiasms and eventually, impotent anger.
>
> While it's true we face many crazy, even evil individuals
> and groups,
> it's even *more* true that we face a crazy, and in quite
> fundamental
> ways evil system. A system which has us as crushed as
> a Roman slave
> at the time of Augustus.
>
>
> Despite this, we shouldn't be depressed or
> disheartened. There's
> freedom in throwing away illusions and knowing precisely
> where you
> stand.
>
>
> Which leads to item 2.
>
>
> 2.) Re-discover the "communist hypothesis".
>
>
> In his important little book, _The Meaning of Sarkozy_,
> Alain Baidou
> discusses the difference between a critique of Sarkozy
> which is
> informed by what he calls the "communist hypothesis" and
> one which
> denies or is ignorant of this hypothesis.
>
> The aware critique acknowledges the master Sarkozy (and
> most other
> leaders) serve and, for that reason, hits much closer to
> the mark. It
> is a *living* critique which can inform an intelligent
> activism. The
> unaware critique devolves into belly aching about Sarkozy's
> personal
> failures or "hypocrisy" and so on. In the American
> context,
> criticisms of the Democratic Party which are unaware of the
> communist
> hypothesis tend to be endless cri de coeur exercises,
> devoid of
> serious content.
>
> Bringing this back to Obama (who is, in some intriguing
> ways we should
> explore some other time, Sarkozy's ideological twin) the
> inability of
> many of us to view his campaign and presidency through a
> communist
> hypothesis filter contributed to the failures of
> imagination I touched
> on in section 1.
>
>
>
>
> Okay, there's much more to say, particularly about the
> kinds of
> activism needed in a confusing time, but I'm very
> tired and going to
> sleep early.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .d.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>