http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-April/026157.html
The relentless and obsessive opposition to Mike Friedman This idea that Obama is "coopting the left" is totally meaningless. And the idea that “program” – at least as a laundry list of issues -- will forever be the dividing line, I find to be fetishistic. Even at other historic moments, "we" would argue that the Democratic Party, not this or that particular candidate is "coopting" the left. Moreover, it isn't that they "coopted" the left, but that sections of that "left" (ephemeral term) were grafting themselves to the Democrats and constituting a pole of attraction for the “masses” (although surely not the 60% of African Americans that preferred to say “no thanks”). Supposedly, we denounced the Democratic Party program as a way of disabusing "the masses" of their illusions in the DP. A sectarian few (well, the entire left is few, to be honest...) carried out this knee-jerk condemnation of DP program just to hear themselves and to assure their place in Sparticist (or whatever) heaven. But this, as Joaquin, Walter, and others, with whom I have not always agreed, is not "other moments" and the Obama campaign is not another DP campaign. To clarify, Obama is another DLC Democrat (as per the NYT article I posted yesterday). His program falls squarely within the ruling class consensus. His stated policy would continue to support Israeli apartheid, troops in Iraq, etc., etc. The DP hasn't changed its stripes. What has changed is the concrete context we are living. As I've argued before, the bourgeoisie faces a crisis of legitimacy on a scale not seen since the great depression and Black candidate has opened discussion of the race question in one of the major bourgeois parties, in a way that hasn’t been seen since the Civil War. The former has engendered a nascent movement which has found expression for the moment in the campaign of the latter. I would say those salient facts point to a new context and, potentially, a new historic moment. And the controversy shouldn’t be reduced to whether or not to vote for Obama. In passing, I just want to point out that the fetishism of issues can itself become a reformist trap. Under our form of bourgeois democracy, NO politician -- not Obama, not McCain, not Clinton, not Nader or McKinney -- would be able to implement the kinds of policies we want. We've long recognized that the president doesn't "make" policy: ruling class foundations, think tanks, corporate bodies do. We know that the only way such policies would be implemented is if there exists a mass movement to demand them and fight for them. If you’ll notice, none of the historic revolutionary leaders made shibboleths of programmatic issues when it came to engaging with the masses. If you look at Malcolm, Chavez, Carlos Fonseca, Fidel, none of these leaders pulled out their program as a dividing line between the righteous and the sinners. Yes, program was important, particular issues at particular times could be important. But the key, strategic goal was building a mass, politically independent, movement of the oppressed and exploited. The key medial strategy was, to use Mao’s analogy, to be among the masses as fish in the sea. To put it another way, you don’t “win the masses” to a better program: you are either part of the movement , as a way of engaging people in discussion around issues, which can possibly, maybe, then be posed as program by a mass movement, or you are a sectarian. Even the paradigmatic (for many) Bolsheviks did this, in practice. That’s what the discussions around the April Theses were about: an adjustment to the animus of the mass base. Given the altered context and the motion around the Obama campaign and what he represents in the context of our society, we need to ask ourselves, is labeling Obama “a Cintonite with a Black face” the best way to do this? In the context of the racist under (and over) tones of the campaign against Obama, how would this sound to millions of people desirous of change and expressing this through the Obama campaign? Is dismissing the movement currently focused on Obama as “coopted” the best way to do this? I’m not convinced this business-as-usual approach is anything more than self-flagellation. I would suggest that folks read Cynthia McKinney’s speech following Obama’s talk as, perhaps, indicative of a more productive way of approaching the campaign. I would also suggest reading the majority of the commentaries that appeared in the same issue of the Black Commentator as the piece Dennis cited. > > Message: 13 > Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:27:30 EDT > From: Dbachmozart at aol.com > Subject: Re: [Marxism] The relentless and obsessive opposition to > Obama > > So to criticize Obama and his Clintonesque program is ultra left? > Obamaism, > not McCain or Hillary Clinton is co-opting the left, that is why we > oppose > it, as we have with every Democrat "lesser evil". Was Walter > "relentless > and > obsessive" when he opposed McGovern in 1972, Kennedy in 1980, Gore in > 2000, > Kerry in 2004?? That's what the liberal Democrats would have accused > him > of. > Once again, it is mind blowing that this ABC of Marxism has to be repeated - on > a Marxist discussion list! > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
