Re: [Marxism] Democrats call for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq

["LouPaulsen" <LouPaulsen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Gandall" <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxx>

> Sorry to keep harping on this little matter, but the ritual denunciations
of
> Kerry and the Democrats still evades the following two questions:

*cough* "RITUAL" denunciations?  If you're using the term correctly, it
means that you think we really like Kerry or are neutral toward Kerry, and
are merely mouthing denunciations which we don't really believe?  Or perhaps
you mean to say "ill-considered denunciations" or "ultraleft denunciations"?

I don't know that I go about "denouncing" Kerry.  I merely state the truth.
For example, Kerry wants to send more troops into Iraq.  He attacks Bush for
being too much in a hurry to turn over the titular government to Iraqis.  He
wants the other coalition members like Spain to "stay the course".  He does
not say anything to suggest that he has any quarrel with the current
massacres in Fallujah and other cities. Are those statements "ritual
denunciations"?  To paraphrase Malcolm, "if the truth is anti-Kerry, blame
the truth, don't blame me."

Anyway, as to the "two questions" (really three):

> 1) Are there constituencies inside the Democratic party -- the Dean and
> Kucinich forces particularly -- which could be mobilized by a skilled and
> experienced left to exploit the Byrd and Kennedy statements to fight the
> leadership line on the war, and around other issues?

Of course there are.  Although we can argue about who is "inside the party".
Do you think that every voter who has registered as a Democrat is "inside
the party"?  Or are you just talking about campaign workers?  Anyway, in
either case, the answer is "yes".  But what does that have to do with
things? see below.

> 2) [a] Why is it better, in light of the above, to practice "lesser evil"
> politics in the peripheral Greens -- now that the principle of
> lesser-evilism appears to be widely accepted on the list (Tony Abdo
> excepted)?

That's an unkind cut ;-)  but I hope some people won't just angrily dismiss
your point, but should actually think about the assumptions that underlay
some of their arguments against Abdo.  Anyway if people are going to think
that Tony is the last living remnant of anti-lesserevilism, I had better
start writing again.

But if I were answering as someone who had made the decision to enter the
Nader campaign, and who was willing to call Nader a "lesser evil" (is he a
lesser evil or a lesser good? :-)  ), I would say, "it is better to work for
the lesser-evil Nader than for the lesser-evil Kerry, because (a) Kerry is
not even a lesser evil than Bush on every issue; in terms of imperialist
adventures Kerry might be the greater evil; certainly he is attacking Bush
from the right as being insufficiently bellicose toward OBL and too ready to
"hand over Iraq", and his position on Palestine is indistinguishable;
furthermore Kerry might be a greater evil just because he is not yet so
discredited as a liar, is not such a right-sectarian, is smarter and is
literate, might be able to better mobilize an international imperialist
coalition again, and might be more effective.  Certainly that's what Thomas
Friedman is hoping for; (b) working for Nader allows me to tell more of the
truth than working for Kerry could possibly do;  (c) the Kerry organization
is firmly in the hands of loyal servants of imperialism, whereas the Nader
organization has people who are more worth talking to; the Nader
organization is also more democratic and allows for more local initiative."

> [2b] Or has the choice now become which of the lesser-evils sounds
> more "progressive" rather than where the audience which needs to be
> reached (trade union and social activists) is to be found?

I would argue that making the decision to work for any electoral campaign,
other than that of one's own socialist party, depends on several criteria.
You suggest two: "which lesser-evil sounds more progressive", which I
suppose you are willing to accord to Nader, or "where the audience which
needs to be reached ... is to be found."  (Which, as I will argue, doesn't
make any sense.)  This is not an either-or question, though.  Others might
be, "Does the candidacy itself have a progressive character, breaking up
barriers to participation in full bourgeois democracy (as for example I
would argue about the Jesse Jackson campaign in 1984), for example", or
"Does this campaign have a kind of mass-movement-of-the-workers/oppressed
character which means that we should be within it even if we don't like the
positions of the particular candidate", or "Can important demands be raised,
or positions be taken, from within this candidacy."

Marvin, you are arguing as if your question [1] is connected with your other
questions, but that connection is only supplied by an assumption which you
do not make explicit, but which I will try to supply.  That assumption is:

"IF, as a leftist one wants to mobilize a constituency of people, THEN one
must join the political party, and support the candidacies of the
politicians, for which/whom those people vote."

Thus, IF I want to mobilize African-American workers, THEN I must join the
Democratic Party and support the candidacies of Kerry and (in Illinois)
Barack Obama.  I will leave it there and put the best face on things for
you, although I could go further, like "IF I want to mobilize disaffected
white workers in 1968, THEN I must join the American Independent Party and
support George Wallace."

Now my questions to you are,

[1] In view of the fact that these "constituencies" do not spend their
entire lives inside Democratic Party caucuses, but are found on the street,
in their workplaces, in community organizations, churches, etc., and are
available to be talked with about political matters at all times, WHY do you
believe that in order to "mobilize" them it is essential to go into some
political campaign?

Just yesterday I believe I was engaged in doing some "mobilizing" of people
against the war.  I was handing out leaflets.  I got in conversations with
people.  I would say that the mood of people on the street is MUCH more for
troop withdrawal than it was two weeks ago - despite the fact that the
politicians (except Byrd) are completely opposed to it.  Nobody complained
that I wasn't wearing a button for some candidate.

[2] In view of the fact that the structure of the presidential campaign of
the Democratic Party is absolutely closed to left influence, either in
process, or in politics, or in terms of any kind of organization, WHY do you
believe that it is POSSIBLE to do any "mobilizing" from within the
Democratic Party?  After all, the Democratic Party is not like a union
local.  There is no monthly Chicago meeting of the Democratic Party where I
can go and introduce some resolution.

[3] If in fact you are not talking about actually "entering" the Democratic
Party, but just about identifying ourselves as Democrats in some non-binding
and ultimately deceptive way - like Progressive Labor did, for example, when
it called itself the "Workers' Action Caucus of the Democratic Party" - then
WHY do you believe that this would even be an aid to organizing these
"constituencies" rather than a positive hindrance?  Once you accept (for the
purposes of reaching "constituencies") the premise that a Democratic victory
is in all cases preferable to a Republican victory, are we not then open to
the complaint at any time that "your attempt to agitate against Kerry is
damaging party unity, causing disaffection, etc., and is ultimately
pointless because he is not going to change his position.  You are just a
wrecker and splitter within the Democratic Party!  A covert Naderite!"  And
then we would get expelled and denounced as bad Democrats!    Since we are
going to get denounced by Kerryites as soon as we open our mouths about our
real politics, wouldn't it be less shameful and degrading to be denounced as
the socialists we are, rather than as bad Democrats?

> The reasons for participation are the same in each case,
> particularly in a period where there is no credible alternative on the
left
> to attract their members.
>
> Marv Gandall

Instead of trying to figure out what to do when there is no credible
alternative on the left, would it not be better to try to BECOME the
credible alternative on the left?

Lou Paulsen


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