RE: [Marxism] Michael Moore and Wesley Clark

["Craven, Jim" <JCraven@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jose writes:

Jim presents a pretty straightforward lesser evil argument in defense of 
Michael Moore's position.

Response (Jim C): This may appear to be equivocating but it isn't. Read what I 
said exactly:

This will no doubt piss some people off, but I can understand why 
self-described "radicals"--and even self-described "Marxists"--might tactically 
hold their noses and support Clark--for some of the same reasons the Chinese 
Communist Party under Mao tried to form four separate alliances with the 
Kuomintang despite the fact that Kuomintang were far more bent on destruction 
of Communists than Japanese fascists--what was at stake versus the levels of 
development and organization and numbers of Communist forces against what they 
were standing up against.
 
But many radicals are radicals, not exactly a great career move, because they 
genuinely and deeply feel rage and pain at the sufferings of oppressed peoples 
and have seen some of those sufferings of oppressed peoples--and the conditions 
and policies that have produced them--up close and personal. Marxism isn't just 
some kind of intellectual or academic or parlor exercise for them, they have 
embraced radical thought and action as the only vehicles possible for achieving 
real liberation and a decent society...

Thanks for the discussion. I am merely pointing out how I can see why some 
radicals might feel they remain radicals even with such an odious tactical 
compromise or retreat.


Articulating a position, even stepping inside and articulating a given 
perspective does not make it mine. In fact, I do not support "lesser evilism" 
or especially "evil lesserism" which is what we really have. But I can 
understand how those driven by genuine rage and anger at systems and forces of 
oppression can take the position they are taking even though I personally 
disagree with them. But this brings in an important point and also illustrates 
why, until recently, I have stayed off many lists.

To build a broad-based united front against fascism or the potential of 
fascism--which is what some are into--or just building a mass movement for 
genuine revolutionary change, requires patient dialogue, listening not just 
spouting off, addressing diverse concerns of diverse sub-groups of a given 
population, gathering new evidence (not just rehashing the old "classics"), 
speaking to diverse audiences at diverse levels of understanding in 
comprehensible language rather than just quote mongering from the classics, 
linking up with--and learning from--oppressed peoples under the concrete 
conditions in which they live and not just sitting behind a keyboard spouting 
off, starting with where people actually are and moving from there rather than 
summarily dismissing those who are not on the same page of ideological purity 
etc etc. This happens over and over on these lists. Someone articulates a 
position, perhaps not even their own, in order to explore that position and why 
someone with some good intentions and revolutionary sentiments might hold it, 
and all of a sudden here it comes: "You said this... Trotsky said this... 
Stalin or Mao said this... On page 342 of the first volume of Das Kapital Marx 
said in footnote 234...  


What if, with every missive going into the details of say Milosovic--pro or 
con--by someone who has obviously never been to the area and does not speak the 
languages and cannot read primary sources in the original languages, I started 
spouting off about "white-bred/in-bred academics" who continue to have nothing 
to say--on progressive or Marxist lists--about genocide going on right under 
their noses while they sit on occupied lands--I am referring to the present and 
ongoing genocide against Indigenous Peoples in the Americas, Australia, New 
Zealand etc? (And I should note parenthetically, that in the last Dems debate 
which I taped and checked, not one, I mean not one mention was made of Native 
Peoples; when "minorities" were mentioned, it was always "Blacks and Browns", 
"African Americans and Latinos".) Is that conducive to building unity with 
Indigenous and non-Indigenous and progressive peoples? Do I become a purist and 
label anyone a reactionary or hypocrite  or "protector of fascists" who does 
not share my view of the significance of Indigenous struggles among various 
struggles of oppressed peoples and the responsibility of non-Indigenous folks 
to have something to say about the subject? And where does that lead?

I see stuff all the time that makes my own blood boil--my blood boils more when 
it is on a list of progressives.
Sometimes I answer, sometimes I don't. One of my colleagues where I work 
decided to get on one of the lists. He had never been on one of these before. 
He does indeed have some good sentiments and he has personally taken some real 
risks to take progressive stands; he wanted to link up with fellow progressives 
but his knowledge of Marx, for but one example, was extremely limited. I 
thought that what he had written was naïve, even wrong, but that is how one 
learns: send up the flag (idea) and see who salutes and see who objects and 
why. But the response he got was vitriolic and even vicious. No attempt to 
start from where he obviously was ideologically and attempt to patiently take 
him--through concrete evidence and reasoning--to another level. Some of the 
names he was called he didn't understand as they referred to various factions 
in history about which he knew nothing. He left the list saying "these people 
eat their young." and had he been a different kind of person, he might have 
been turned off permanently from leftist analyses and perspectives. That was 
the point of my missive.

For the record, I consider every single U.S. president, without even one 
exception, to be a low-life piece of shit. Of course I understand that voter 
disenfranchisement is nothing new in U.S. history--it is the routine. That is 
not the issue. But I also understand that tactical thinking--and yes even 
compromise sometimes--is not the same as "lesser evilism" or even "evil 
lesserism" especially when it will be others, some without enough money or time 
to afford computers or internet to allow them to participate in our grand 
debates on these lists that will pay horrible prices for the lack of tactical 
thinking and consideration on the part of some who do have the luxury of 
participating in these debates.

Now does that make it clear what I really said and wrote, what I meant and why 
I wrote what I wrote? 

Jim C.

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism