Michael Perelman wrote:
The ascent of the right depended upon a (hard capitalist or cultural
conservative)
vision of society, a long-term perspective, and lots of money. If we had
our own
vision and a long-term perspective, we could compensate for our lack of
money. The
right was able to hold together even though the libertarians and cultural
conservatives had different objectives. The left seems less able to
accommodate
differences.
There are two ways to look at this. There are differences that
unnecessarily divide and weaken the left. These include how to interpret
the USSR and ancillary questions. A sign that we are making progress is the
joint campaign of the Mandelista LCR in France and another Trotskyist group
called Lutte Ouvriere. Their expected vote would dwarf Nader's 2000 vote.
Then there are differences over principle that should not be swept under
the rug. For example, figures associated with Dissent Magazine and the
Nation have been aggressively attacking the Nader campaign, ANSWER and
other groups and individuals to their left. Should there not be an
ideological counter-attack? Also, it does not quite make sense to compare
right unity with left unity unless you understand that right unity is made
possible through the hegemony of the class they orient to. In other words,
both the libertarians and the cultural conservatives get funding from
Coors, the Olin Foundation, etc. The left orients to a class that not only
has no power; it is not even self-aware as a class. This tends to lend a
certain abstruseness to ideological disputes on the left and encourage
sectarianism. If the working class was in motion and saw the conquest of
power as a goal, it would put enormous pressure on the left to unite. This
process occurred in Nicaragua as described in George Black's "Triumph of
the People". The 3 factions of the FSLN were practically ordered by the
"muchachos" to set aside their differences and overthrow Somoza.
Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
