At 08:04 AM 5/15/2010, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>At 04:14 PM 5/9/2010, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>>I don't think Chomsky says that the Left is to blame for the tea party.
>
>he says that, if we don't do something, then we will be to blame. he also
>says that they are dupes of a rightwing that both caused their problem and
>is organizing the protest - BECAUSE we haven't been offering alternative
>analysis.
>
>clearly, this is not the case. we have a million and one different ways we
>have provided an alternative - including chomsky's own work! what more
>could you or he possibly want?
>
>> What he says - causing consternation - is that the tea party arises
>> from legitimate grievances.
>
>i call bullshit. i certainly think they have grievances. what i object to
>is the idea that we need to work with the tea party or its supporters.
>other people have grievances and express them too. i think the ideology
>the tea party espouses, the fact that it is just a continuation of
>conservativism (which is, duh!, a response to its grievances with the
>system it advances!), is a serious problem and that we can look elsewhere
>for groups who don't advance that ideology to find plenty of people
>hurting and aggrieved.
>
>this conversation took place at an organizing meeting awhile back. all
>these guys are older, veterans of the 60s - antiwar, anti-racist, civil
>rights, and deeply pro-labor. we're talking serious commie pinko reds.
>
>Joe, veteran of pro-labor and civil rights and direct action movements
>says, "I won't write off the tea party. At least they're in the streets."
>
>Allen: "The KKK was in the streets too. You didn't write them off, Joe,
>you fought them."
>
>>He objects to a response to the teapartiers that is simply ridicule. The
>>Limbaughs and the Palins offer plausible but false answers for real
>>economic distress - "crazy, but extremely dangerous" answers. It's the
>>job of the Left to counter those answers, not just dismiss them.
>
>really? I had no idea that was what I was supposed to be doing. Thank god
>someone finally explained what the job of the left is. Quick: we need a
>job description in case anyone forgets!
>
>my problem is that this excessive focus on action is a set of blinders.
>when action is the sign of the subject of history, we exclude a whole
>shitload of people who aren't "doing something" in the ways we want to see.
>
>e.g., the student protests in california. is there a problem with
>advancing those actions, helping them to radicalize their views? or is
>just so fuckall important that we care about the poor forgotten white guys
>and the primary contradiction of class?
>
>e.g. the recent erruption of immigrants reported by doug onthis list.
>
>it's a real problem when you have your sites so narrowly concentrated on
>one particular group, on the group that's the loudest and the nastiest,
>because you can't see around the corners of your own theory and notice all
>the people doing the same sort of complaining and howling, but in ways we
>refuse to see as protest, as resistance. it ends up placing all the
>emphasis on a particular kind of political voice and action.
>
>feh
>
>
>>Of course the administration and its supporters are working hard to
>>convince us that all their critics are just crazy racists - an
>>interesting example of Walter Benn Michaels' notion of the substitution
>>of race for class. --CGE
>>
>>
>>On 5/9/10 11:32 AM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>>>what is it with the "blame the left" crap?
>>>
>>>in this interview, (and in a few others), Chomsky says that the left is
>>>to blame for the tea party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWs6g3L3fkU
>>>
>>>and in another interview, he intimates that, if we don't get it
>>>together, we can be blamed for the rise of fascism.
>>>
>>>WTF! how on earth do you engage in all that analysis of the media
>>>ideology machine, yak away about powerful interests, etc. and then
>>>actually blame the left for the Tea Party and, possibly, fascism.
>>>
>>>he says he "wouldn't ridicule the answers that are being given to" the
>>>Tea Party by the right - Limbaugh, Palin, etc. Instead, those answers
>>>are understandable and he assumes they are "sincere." (referencing
>>>Limbaugh interviewing Palin back in dec 2008). "If Limbaugh says, 'what
>>>do you think about this junk science elitist liberals are trying to
>>>foist on us?' and if she (Palin) says, 'yeah, just look out the window,
>>>you can't see any palm trees growing in Alaska.' (as refutation to the
>>>junk science)
>>>
>>>then he says that the "answers they *are* getting are not only crazy but
>>>extremely dangerous. so the *right* response is to ask *ourselves*, why
>>>are we failing to organize these people."
>>>
>>>so, don't ridicule their ideas - except when you do(and call them crazy)?
>>>
>>>
>>>it's as if chomsky tremendously admires the idea that you merely need
>>>give really simple answers to make an impact. be more like Sarah Palin,
>>>I guess, and point out the window at a "fact" - a palm tree is not
>>>growing in Alaska - and, voila!, the people will get it and be moved to
>>>your position.
>>>
>>>how do you trace the duplicity of the press - where lies and truth are
>>>told on the exact same page (figuratively) speaking - revealing the
>>>stronghold capitalist ideology has on people, talk about the massive
>>>propaganda from the business class and then think ideology is so easilyl
>>>undone. if the propaganda requires so much effort to implant and sustain
>>>itself, relently shaping hearts, bodies, and minds to keep people in
>>>line, adhering to that ideology, how it is that it just melts away at
>>>mere exposure to the facts.
>>>
>>>Later, the interviewer asks him why, if there are shared ideas about the
>>>bank bailouts, etc on the left and right, why can't unify them since
>>>we're going after the same targets. Chomsky's answer: "because we have
>>>not succeeded in unifying them. it's our fault."
>>>
>>>this is really strange. it's as if all you have to do is yak it up with
>>>people, talk away about the facts and the way it is, and --voila! -- the
>>>left/right will be unified against the common enemy of capitalism.
>>>
>>>and where does he get the idea that the left hasn't been giving people
>>>answers for a damn long time, in all kinds of venues, in all kinds of
>>>ways, through all kinds of media, in easy-to-understand phamplets (like
>>>his!), in activist organizations, in their participation in various
>>>groups (like antiwar, feminist etc. - that's where i first encountered
>>>marxist analysis -- though no one told me they were marxist or
>>>identified what they were saying as a marxist-inspired idea.)
>>>
>>>feh!
>>>
>>>how do you write about this huge propaganda machine and then turn around
>>>and pretend that getting a hearing in the face of the machine is pretty
>>>difficult. but it isn't the fault of a capitalist system that rejects
>>>and viciously puts down those ideas, it is, rather, the fault of
>>>leftists for not making their views sufficiently clear.
>>>
>>>yeah yeah i know. but chomsky's your hero. whatever.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>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
>>
>>--
>>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
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)