[WAS: RE: [PEN-L:32169] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the "multitude"]
I don't really get the point of quoting the dialogue below. The kind of discussion that was rejected by the person who insulted me at length was NOT about tactics and/or strategy, but about "what kind of socialism are we for?"
BTW, I'm not against talking about tactics or strategy. I just think that a total rejection of more fundamental issues is a mistake, so that a restriction of discussion to only tactics, strategy, propaganda, and the like is a major mistake. Put simply: many people -- even on the left -- incorrectly identify Marxism and socialism with Stalinism and other kinds of top-down socialism (e.g., most social democracy, despite the fact that social democrats don't like to be associated with either Marxism or socialism). It doesn't have to be that way and people should be told.
(The fact that I reject Stalin and bureaucratic socialism should not be seen as a personal criticism of any individual on pen-l.)
The quotations do show a healthy willingness of people in Solidarity (a group I've never belonged to) to criticize their own organization. They also deal with a different issue than socialism from below, that of workerism (often associated with the self-styled "orthodox" followers of the late Hal Draper) vs. a broader approach (which I favor). Both of these are "from below," in terms of tactics and strategy (and, ideally, long-term goals). The difference is about "_what kind_ of from below?"
Years ago, when I was working as a rank-and-file member of AFSCME (the clerical workers' union) in Berkeley, there was this constant conflict between the "Draperites" and the Communist Party (pro-Soviet) folks. It was one of the more useless conflicts I've seen. Steve Diamond may remember that era.
------------------------------
I wrote:
> >It sure seems that we could also spend time on such things as the
> >principles of socialism (i.e., what are we really for, anyway?) but some
> >object to that. I recently received a series of off-list insults from one
> >who didn't want to discuss "socialism from below" (the socialist
> >philosophy that I adhere to), invoking his or her long and highly
> >effective life as a political activist to justify this rejection.
Louis Proyect:
> In fact, there is a discussion going on over on Marxmail by members of
> Solidarity, a group that is in the "socialism from below" tradition. I
> welcome pen-l'ers to look at our archives to see how useful such a
> discussion can be when it is rooted in the day-to-day experience of
> activists. Here's a sample exchange between 2 people in their
> 20s, who are deeply committed to democratic socialism:
>
> --- Alex LoCascio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Plain and simple, there exists a minority but nonetheless hugely
> > influental current within Solidarity, emerging from the Draper wing,
> > for whom trade union work, and only trade union work, is the
> > all-encompassing focus for any socialist organization.
>
> I won't deny this, but I think we're beginning to move beyond it. I
> myself am not in a union, being a professional geek. I'm a political
> activist. Most comrades in Atlanta are of the same ilk, and there's
> been no pressure to change our focus.
>
> I think what Solidarity is realizing, though maybe not saying as much
> as we should, is that it's going to take a variety of different work to
> accomplish what we want. It's going to take trade union work, but it's
> going to also take political activism, educational work, student work,
> etc. You can't--and this is the failure of the SWP and other
> sects--rely on just *one* focus if you want to build a broad movement.
>
> > The success or failure of the Solidarity regroupment project (and
> > frankly, I'm of the opinion that it's time to cut one's losses,
> > though I'd welcome evidence to the contrary) ultimately hinges upon
> > it's ability to have a rational discussion of these failures, rather
> > than just assuming that anyone lobbing these critiques just wants to
> > shit on the lifelong work of some people (Solidarity's record on
> > welcoming internal dissent, rather than engaging in high-school like
> > pariah politics and ostracism, is not very good).
>
> I think regroupment is a success, but it's a long-term project. There's
> no way to just say "hey! wanna regroup!" and have everyone jump on
> board. You have to take it as it comes.
>
> Alex, I don't think I disagree with you. I think any disagreement we
> may have comes out of our viewpoint of Solidarity's potential. I think,
> given the nature of the organization, we have room to do great things.
> In Atlanta, we *are* doing great things. In the few short months since
> three of us got together and formed a "twig," we've become a major
> force on the Left here.
>
> I think your criticisms are perfectly legit, but it's something that is
> capable of being repaired. I don't think Solidarity's work in Labor
> Notes and TDU is something to be dismissed, but you're absolutely
> right, it's not something that can be the *basis* of all Solidarity
> activity.
>
> Adam
I've dropped Louis' personal comments from the end.
------------------------
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
