> 1. what about the petty grievances
> of the tea party? how do they fit
> into this theory? it's certainly
> "raw human energy" no? if what
> counts most is their action,
> then... ?
Yes, raw human energy, popular involvement (including working people, predominantly white), but horribly misdirected. It is a reactionary movement, diametrically opposed to the objectives of the left, which is not unrelated to its very powerful and wealthy sponsorship.
I think Doug is right that, in its demographic composition, petit bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie are overrepresented. Still, a majority of the movement are workers, especially if we include in it people who may not be fully involved in protests and organization, but who fall under its ideological influence.
Why are workers actively involved or under the ideological influence of a movement directed against their own general, long-term interest? Working people are very diverse. The totality of their interests is a complex, contradictory bunch. It's not uncommon in history to see their partial and immediate goals conflict with their general and mediate goals, the political energy of workers alienated from them and boomeranged against them. That's business as usual in history.
> 2. the lover/beloved analogy. so are
> you saying that our preconceptions
> about, say, the tea party would change
> once engaged in a relationship --
> common social struggle -- with them?
> i mean, would we find them not the
> racists we thought they were? if they
> turn out to be, say, really really
> really insistant that homophobia isn't
> a disease, that it's a normal human
> reaction based on evolutionary history,
> etc. and they were to insist that, if
> we all want to keep fucking together,
> then you'd better accept that about
> them.
Definitely our prejudices about the tea party movement would shift if we engaged them one way or another. And theirs about us. And the whole political landscape would be altered. I guess the first question is: Should the left engage them? And the second is: How?
Regarding the first question, the answer is Yes. It is the business of the left to engage any *meaningful* political development in the country, and the TPM meets that criterion. Again, my conception of the left is not limited to the radical left. It includes anybody fighting on the side of working people, in their concrete struggles. According to that definition, Arianna Huffington's web site is now -- perhaps -- one of the main fora of the left. But I don't think LBO-Talk should be too modest about its own influence -- not bad under the circumstances.
As for the second question (how?), let me try and answer it by contrast with Doug's and Carrol's views. If I understand him correctly, Doug says that it would be a waste of time for leftists to try to organize TPM people, because they are too trapped in their ideology. Clearly, the left's organizing efforts should go after the lowest hanging fruit.
Carrol's point seems to be more general: Leftists (a term by which he apparently uses to refer narrowly to radical leftists) should focus on organizing themselves first, with a view on the long run, and this is contrasted with attempts to influence today's broader political developments: stopping the wars, reforming health care, reforming the banks, etc. The left has no chance of making a difference here, so why bother.
What is wrong with these views?
IMO, we need to distinguish between recruiting people and engaging them politically. The former task is just an instance of the latter. The work of the left, ideological and political, does not consist merely of recruiting cadres, although that is one. It also includes (1) building sympathy and support among broad segments of the population, (2) neutralizing possible opponents, and (3) splitting, weakening, isolating, and crushing the enemy. These three tasks are organically connected. Just like all vegetable soil has to go through the digestive system of worms, the reality of socialism will emerge after passing through the minds and individual behavior of working people.
If the left doesn't try to do (3) seriously, because it feels to be too small, divided, and weak, then neither (2) nor (1) will be attained. Moreover, as a result, cadre recruitment efforts will be exercises in sectarianism. The left is supposed to be a fighting force, not a propaganda club.
The unity of leftists, radical or not, is not an end in itself, but a means to other ends. And these ends are not self contemplation or preparation to carry out an abstract program of revolution and socialism at some undefined point in the future, when the stars align properly or Carrol's unpredictable social upheavals take place. The point of a united left is to turn itself into an effective force involved in the concrete struggles of the day. It is not a unity premised mainly on ideological or long-term aspirations.
In my mind, the notion that leftists should not try to influence the outcome of today's political conflicts translates as giving up on the struggles that exist, the struggles in which working people are now vested, with the excuse that we are too fragmented and weak. By refusing to engage in the big political conflicts of the day, the left perpetuates its division and weakness.
A left that engages seriously the arguments of the TPM, refutes its myths, exposes its leadership with facts and logic, is -- at once -- reinforcing the commitment of its members, the sympathy of its supporters, and the fear and demoralization of its potential and actual opponents.
It is true that logic and facts alone are insufficient to have people come around in the struggle for communism. But they are *absolutely necessary*. The intellectual energy of several generations of Marxists have been used to build a scientific understanding of the way in which capitalist societies function, because only with such understanding we will become capable of dismantling social alienation in its various forms. Clearly, to date, the effort of Marxists has fallen way short. It's suffered perversions and diversions along the way. But that remains the task. We should not minimize the importance of rationality in the struggle for communism, which is not a claim that social life in our societies is rational or even predominantly rational.
Finally, Chomsky makes sense. Ridicule is a weapon to be used judiciously, with tactical discipline. It does no good to use it against the popular constituency of the TPM. If it offers a clear political advantage, then it is to be used against those at the top, people with great power and wealth. Ridiculing Sarah Palin may or may not be good. Ridiculing the TPM protesters is just wrong. If the left is to advance, it will have to build alliances, coalitions with people similar to those now with the TPM. No need to burn bridges. The distinction between people as human beings and the political structures in which they are immersed seems to me like the most basic principle of social criticism.
PS: I don't mention Brad on my post above, not because I don't want to engage with what he's written, but because I've been time-constrained to read all his posts seriously.