> both of you, SA and Michael, espouse positions on this list that, in
> my view, are the positions of a liberal aned to persuade, exactly as
> is the case here, radicals to *support* Liberals. Or to shame radicals
> (in SAs case) into not being so dissociated from the causes supported
> by liberals and progressives.
>
> but we are not here to *support* Liberalism. We are here to kill it.
> We are not here to modify our radicalism, in order to concede that we
> need them. We are because Liberalism *needs* us.
You should re-read my post. I was saying exactly the same thing as you, and exactly the opposite of what you attribute to me: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090928/013896.html
I diagnosed the problem as being that right now, "any coalition [between liberals and the left] would be us joining them, not the other way around." I lamented the fact that "the [anti-Iraq war] marches organized by radicals ended up largely serving, de facto, as foot-soldiery for Nancy Pelosi and MoveOn" and that under present circumstances the dynamics of a left-liberal coalition are such that radicals are forced to "tag along behind, all their shouted caveats and objections lost in the wind." Finally, I concluded that "the left needs to stop thinking of liberals as the Other. *But* that has to come in the context of some movement that would allow the left to actually exert some gravitational pull" [emphasis added].
SA