Re: [Marxism] Harlem Conference on Obama (FYI -- past)

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My Solidarity comrade wrote: The relevant
question for a conversation about the Harlem meeting, however, is the state
of consciousness among vanguard layers, and on that level those who do not
get swept up in the mania for Obama reflect the more interesting, and
positive, development it seems to me


Fred comments:
Well, I have a broad philosophical-political difference with my comrade on
the relative importance of developments among the masses and developments on
the very weak and divided vanguard in this country.  The changes in the mood
and attitudes of millions seem to me to be the precondition for real
development in progress in the vanguard, and, yes, Virginia, I do believe in
a vanguard.

So to me the most interesting development in the campaign is the tendency to
reject not just Bush but the whole Bush-Clinton continuity in favor of
"change" as represented by a Black candidate, Barack Obama. I also think
that those of us who support McKinney had better be prepared, as required
and it will be required, to defend that Black candidate against the
race-baiting and racist campaign that is sure to be launched by the McCain
camp, one that may be more fierce if he can get Condoleeza Rice as his
vice-presidential candidate.

The successful meeting in Harlem was an indication of the ferment in the
vanguard that changes in the outlook of masses are producing.

>From that standpoint I admit to hoping that Obama wins the nomination and
the presidency -- on my assumption that McKinney can't win, which I think is
reasonable. I think that will be the best situation for us. But that assumes
there will still be some kind of us.  From that standpoint, the Harlem
meeting seemed attractive and still does. But Obama will have to do it
without my vote, as presidents-to-be have managed to do since I first became
politically active in 1960.

But one thing my Solidarity comrade may underestimate is the importance of
the vanguard having a clear sense of where the masses are at, what is
happening to them, whether they are going forward or backward.  It has
become customary in the vanguard to pay little attention to this particular
question. Whether the masses are moving away from them or toward them, or
whether they have to find ways to move toward the masses without ceasing to
tell them the truth, is an art that has been lost.  Since customarily today
the vanguard and the masses live on different planets or at least planes of
existence.

That is becoming more dangerous. And the possibility of gains by being aware
of what happens in the masses, of being aware that the desire to reject
Clinton and Bush and to vote for the Black candidate, for "change",
represents an advance not just another case of being "fooled" by the white
rulers.

Let me suggest that part of the reason for Obama's emergence from the crowd
is that the primaries revealed that large sections of the masses weren't so
EASILY fooled.  They needed better bread. An "experienced" candidate meant a
candidate with a lot of experience in screwing them royally.

Plus the rulers themselves want "change" and this is a big part of the
meaning of Obama's slogan. A large section of them don't want to have to pry
another president -- Clinton or McCain (who, contrary to the CP, represent
the same basic perspective from the standpoint of ruling class policy) who
has to be brutally pressured to deal with Iran, Cuba, or Sadr. We should
keep in mind that "change" this year is a slogan with appeals to all
classes, not just an attempt to "fool the Blacks" and working people.

Joaquin, of course, has called for a vote for Obama in the primaries, and
has proclaimed that he would vote for Obama in Georgia if it would make any
difference. I suggest he follow his conscience since you never know what
complexities will occur by November in the Solid Republican White South.

Joaquin, as usual in debates, has reached the point where a touch of
hysteria is taking over. This is not really a disapproving statement, since
I am hardly free from the same failing, but I think it is a fact.

I agree that the actual differences between Obama and the other candidates
(on Iran, Cuba, voting record on Iraq, etc., including even a slight
difference with Clinton on Israel, where all the main candidates are nothing
less than swinish) need to be taken note of, since these explain not only a
bit of his popular support but a lot of his ruling class and elite support
-- and he has won a lot of that since he started winning primaries and had
some from the get-go.

Is it really a disaster, though, if leftists (Black and otherwise) notice
that Obama is not an antiwar candidate or a Black-rights candidate, or a
pro-worker candidate. He is a bourgeois imperialist candidate.  This is a
fact like any other, not a given to be swept aside as irrelevant. By
definition he is a war candidate, although not identical in kind to Clinton
or McCain who really stand on their "experience", that is, the policies of
the last 16 years that have failed and have become discredited.

I also think his rise represents a symbolic conquest of sorts for those who
gave their lives resisting slavery, fighting in the Civil War and
afterwards, and against Jim Crow.

But it is not a crime to tell the truth about who this candidate is and who
he represents and who he will represent.  

Maybe the McKinney campaign will be more sectarian than I would like about
this, but I have some confidence in her.  I think she will know how to
handle racist attacks on anyone including Obama. But disaster? We're a long
way from being able to cause disasters of any kind, even to ourselves. 

The only question is will the national/class anticapitalist left be able to
make the modest gains that are possible in terms of patiently explaining
ideas that will come into their own later. Joaquin has yet to show any
examples of how this can be done better from within the Obama camp. I look
forward to his reports on this.
Fred Feldman


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu