ravi wrote: > Ok, thanks for the response. Of course it needs to be tempered by the > oft-repeated counter-argument about life for the less privileged under > Clinton and other Democrats (in the US and the ROTW).
What counter-argument? As far as I know, employment, real income, and a bunch of social indices descriptive of the workers' living conditions weren't worse under Clinton than under the previous or subsequent Bush. But note that my argument didn't require that the DP be what it is not. No illusions about the DP or about Clinton. Just the fact that, most likely, under a 2nd W term, things were poised to be substantially worse for workers here and abroad than under the alternative scenario. And what was the price that the left had to pay to help stop Bush? Not to abandon its anti-DP propaganda or its strategic stance against the two-party system. All that was required then was to help the DP remove Bush from the White House. Since about half the workers in the U.S. and certainly most politically active workers were to vote anyway, the organizational work required in the campaign was a good chance to expose them to radical propaganda -- but unlike the wacky "radical" propaganda of the sects and ultras, this propaganda would have been linked to immediate actions that made sense to them. It was fertile ground to organize around the left's long-run strategy. It was a no brainer. The fact that people in the left preferred to waste their time with Nader, little irrelevant candidates, and abstention is a measure of political infantilism. We need to grow up politically. > I tend to buy into Chomsky's arguments (and yours too, from what I read > in your post) to treat Bush II as a special case and support any lesser > evil. > > However, generally speaking, I think phrases like "superficially > radical", "useless ideological purity" are unfair and irrelevant (*if* > applied in the general argument against supporting the Democrats). > > Gradual progress is often accompanied by gradual regress and life is not > a pleasant thing for many on either slope. > > I (personally) do not think the answer is a revolution (which is not to > say that I think a revolution will not work, but only that I have no > opinion on revolutions). I do think that the answer has to include > radically (there is that word) reconfiguring certain inherently lopsided > arrangements. For example, I do not see any amount of support to > Democrats changing the lack of "one person, one vote". In 2004, we were not choosing between a radical change in U.S. society and a gradual step. We were choosing between a gradual step and a totally meaningless gesture. We call this latter kind of empty posturing "radicalism" out of habit, not out of rigor. True radical changes have to be prepared patiently over an extended period of time, with a lot of work that in the short run only induces tiny, molecular changes in the minds and actions of individuals and groups. The kind of work that would enable a significant social change in the U.S. is yet to be conducted by the left. If it had been done, things would look very different. So, just because things suddenly get worse and people get completely fed up, we cannot expect that the resulting crisis (if it erupts) will be resolved in our favor. When a crisis erupts, it's already too late to undertake preparatory work. In that case, we are totally at the mercy of forces we have no influence on. We depend on luck. My understanding of class politics is that we try to anticipate things to the best of our ability and then *act* accordingly to help our luck. The preparatory work is essential. And an election campaign with heavy agitational ammunition as the one in 2004 was an ideal opportunity for that kind of preparatory work. We were not constrained, in our contact with people, to present Kerry or the DP as the panacea. We could elaborate on the limitations and flaws of the DP. "Lesser evil" sounds terrible to radicals, but regular people find it a sensible formula. We could say it like it was -- a compromise with reality forced by the weakness of the left and the fragmentation of workers. We could sketch in our propaganda the kind of changes that can be accomplished with a united left and with a united working class. It was a chance to build up the left, more permanent institutions of the type Michael Perelman mentioned. So, the term "superficial radicalism" is perfectly adequate. Because it's fake radicalism. The *only* feasible way to induce a radical change is by creating its pre-conditions through tactical work that is not very sexy, including cooperation with the DP. Or you tell me how to -- without compromises with the DP, with direct radical actions, clashing frontally with the two main parties -- accomplish "one person, one vote" or dismantle the "winner takes all" lock in the electoral system or get rid of the electoral college or make the senate vote proportional to state population or induce any fundamental change in this country's political or legal system. How? Julio
