On 21 Apr, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Michael Perelman wrote:
I'm having terrible problems with my e-mail right now, but I did
find something on
the LBO list, written by somebody here, which I think offers a very
interesting take
on mail lists:
<snip happens> ....
Consider the following phrase: "The left in the US, by being unwilling
to ally. . ."
Now who in the f* hell is the formal leadership of this (mythical)
creature THE left in the US? Who conceivably is in a position to ally
with anybody or anything?
Giving the original author of the quoted phrase ("the left in the
US") some leeway, the lament makes sense to me, somewhat. I am not
sure I see the absolute need for a leadership, much less a formal
one, for people to ally with one another and act in some useful
manner. Progress (in the leftist sense) need not be a deterministic
matter. In fact, it is anything but.
So I do not dismiss such complaints as:
"The Democrats/liberals/progressives in the US, by being unwilling to
examine the deeper issues and causes of oppression (etc) ...."
"The 'netroots' in the US, by being unwilling to step outside horse-
race politics and paralysing pragmatism ..."
And so on.
It could be argued that Democrats or the "netroots" are an existing
formal or informal collective, whereas no such organisation, entity
or group exists for the Left. But membership in a set is not just
about carrying the right card. There *are* broad characteristics by
which one can describe (I claim) a U.S left -- not one of much
organisation or volume -- and then examine whether the members (or a
majority of them) choose or refuse to ally themselves with groups
seeking similar goals.
From a personal point of view: I am a US leftist. I dither about
throwing my lot in or collaborating with the Democratic party and its
supporters. Reading through the comments sections on the blogs and
Alternet (etc) tells me there are quite a few others facing this
Hobson's choice.
--ravi
