**** NP On Line News #3 ****
Greetings, and a word of introduction. I'm writing on behalf of the
New Party, which is a new and growing progressive political party
active in 10 states.
I'm writing because we'd like you to know more about us. Over time,
we hope to get you actively involved in helping us grow. Our hunch is
that you, being on this list-serve, are a "small d-democrat," and
that you'll be somewhere
between curious and ecstatic to learn about what one national
magazine calls "the most successful and promisig progressive minor
party since the 1930's." If we're right, great. Here's how you can
learn more:
1. Check out our web site: www.newparty.org
2. send an email asking for more info to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. subscribe to our MODERATED, read-only list. That means the messages are
very infrequent (2x/month or so), and of reliably high quality. We
alternate monthly updates on the party's progress with other
interesting but more general pieces. Below is an intereview that
Noam Chomsky did on the NP which is typically Chomskian -- that
is, spectacular and incisive. To subscribe, send the message
subscribe np-build to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Before getting to Chomsky, here's a snapshot of the New Party.
Founded in 1993, the NP has won 94 of its first 140 races for school
boards, city councils, county boards, and state legislatve seats, and is
actively promoting campaigns for living wage jobs, campaign finance
reform, and genuine equal opportunity for children. We have about
7500 dues-paying members (Dems have 200,000, Reps about 700,000).
The basic idea is to be principled and pragmatic at one and the same
time, and so far at least, it's working. NP chapters have a good mix of
trade unionists, low and moderate income community activists and
residents, grassroots environmentalists, feminists, free-floating
intellectuals, ex-Perotistas, and a lot of other people who are united
above all by a commitment to the idea that we can do much better as a
society. Join the party (if you're not already a member) and you'll get
plenty of material, including an excellent newsletter, to fill out this
picture. You'll also be kept up on the progress of our "fusion" voting
campaign and Supreme Court case, Twin Cities New Party v.
McKenna, which is now scheduled for early November. This case
could transform American politics. Lord knows it needs transforming.
So, until then, here's Chomsky.
{Noam Chomsky is Professor of Lingusitics at MIT in Cambridge,
Mass. He is widely considered to be among the most important
thinkers and writers of the 20th Century).
Brief comments [on the New Party], because I'm in a rush, and don't
want to delay.
1. Am I a member? Yes.
2. Do I think it's a constructive idea? Yes.
3. Is it just a "reform movement within capitalism"? Yes.
4. Am I against capitalism? Yes.
5. Is there a contradiction between 3 and 4? No.
6. How is the New Party different from liberalism? Hard to answer
without some clarification. If by "liberalism" is meant the Democratic
Party, it is plainly different from liberalism. If what is meant is some
kind of social democratic version of state capitalism, presumably not --
at least now, though the project is one that has a possible evolution in
mind, and in prospect, I think.
The one non-factual question is 5, so a remark on that. We live in this
world, not some other world. In this world, people have rather serious
problems, and for many people, the problems are getting worse.
Personally, I'd like to do what is within my reach to help alleviate
these problems. If that means working within institutions to try to
mitigate their worst abuses, fine; I'm happy to do that, recognizing that it
doesn't change the institutions. That's why I've taken considerable
initiative in such matters as resistance against the Vietnam war,
working with solidarity and support groups focusing on problems here
and abroad, giving money to huge numbers of relief and human rights
organizations (etc.), and on, and on, and on. All of this is reformist,
"within capitalism"; and the short-term goals are achievable without
modifying institutions.
So why do it? Because if a child is dying or being tortured, and I can
help, I'll try to help. As simple as that, in essence. That aside, if there
are ways to help people understand why such things are happening,
and what might be done about them, I'll use those ways, wherever I
can find them. If there is another way to approach the day when
institutions can be changed, I'd be more than pleased to learn about it.
The same extends to the New Deal, British Labor Party, NDP in
Canada, and everything mentioned in the communications, and much
else like them. Were their limitations obvious from the start? Sure.
Did critical participation within them improve people's lives? I don't
see how that can even be questioned. A lot of people in this country
had their lives enormously improved by the New Deal and "war on
poverty," radically limited and often cynical as they were. A lot of
people in this country would be much better off if we had the kind of
health care system that most industrial countries have, or if Boston
City hospital didn't have to have a malnutrition clinic for children
suffering from third-world conditions, etc. Could the New Party help
do what other reformist parties have done? I think so; it's one of the
many parallel ways of approaching such tasks. That's one reason why
I support it. Could it not only achieve reforms but pave the way to
something better? Not only could it, but that's the only kind of way I
know of. We are hardly shaking the institutions to their foundations
right now, and would be doing so even less if we were watching TV
instead.
Is it the case that "state capitalism is still capitalism--and
capitalism just doesn't work" and "you can't cure cancer with
band-aids"? Mostly, I agree. State capitalism is still capitalism, and
its fundamental problems remain even if the edges are softened --
something that means a great deal to people who are in bad trouble.
You can't cure cancer with bandaids, but you can relieve the suffering
of cancer victims in many ways; I'm all in favor of that, since I don't
like to see people suffer when relief is possible. And you can even
take steps that might lead to its cure. Which leads to the next
question.
Should we also try to change institutions? Absolutely. How do we
do it? By helping people come to an understanding of their nature,
how they can be changed, and how people can work together to
change them -- understanding that may be better than ours, as we will
learn from them, if we are willing to listen. The natural way to
approach these goals is to press to the limits the options available
within the institutions, so that people come to understand, from their own
thinking and experience, what these institutions are, and how they
work. That means what is sometimes ridiculed as "reformism"
(including what all of us participating in this forum are doing right
now); but it should be considered, in my opinion, the only serious path
towards revolutionary change -- at least, for those who want that change to be
towards freedom, not new forms of authoritarian domination.
Are there other ways? Could be. Surely 100 flowers should bloom,
if anyone can figure out how to grow them. But I know of one path
that won't go anywhere: do nothing, because whatever you can think
of doing doesn't overthrow institutions tomorrow.
Over the years, I've often met people who are quite acute and radical
analysts, and who sit on the sidelines out of contempt for the kinds of
activism, organizing, education, funding, etc., that is possible,
because it all leaves oppressive institutions in place. Some of them
have been quite wealthy, but wouldn't give a cent to an organization
that feeds and cares for starving children, because that does not get to
the heart of the problems. So they prefer to watch and scoff; does that
get to the heart of the problems? Personally, I'm not impressed.
Is this a bit brusque? Yes, but I'm off to another talk -- within the
structure of institutions, because those are the options that exist, to my
knowledge. And I don't want to delay until I have some free time,
which may be quite a bit down the road, for the same reasons.
Noam
------------------------------
A last word. First, check out our web site --www.newparty.org. It has
tons of background materials, articles, and recent updates. You can
also request more information by going to it. Or you can join directly
by sending $36 to New Party, 227 West 40th, #1303, NY NY 10018.
Send more if you've got a decent paying job.
Finally, feel free (and encouraged) to distribute this message to
everyone on your own list -- and even better, send us a copy of your list
so we can keep spreading the word in organizationally productive ways.
Thanks again.
Dan Cantor
Executive Director/National Organizer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
