Re: [Marxism] Cynthia McKinney Announces Formation of DIGNITY

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Louis writes: 

" I am a little skeptical since there is so little motion in the Black
community now. At the risk of provoking Fred with my Obamaphobic views, I
have a feeling that the lack of motion is attributable to his hold over the
official Black leadership."

Well, as usual my crystal ball  is not working. But it just don't plain feel
right what these comments point to -- that the election of Obama was a
DEFEAT for the Black community and a SETBACK for political action by Black
folks and working people generally. 

Politics and above all shifts in mass moods are ... complicated. But the
dynamics of U.S. ruling class politics having wound up last year that it
either was going to be a woman or a Black man for the Democrats and
therefore ALMOST CERTAINLY winning the White House, does not overwhelm me
with a sensation of ruling class strength and invincibility. Of course, if
the oppression of Blacks or women had become trivial, expendable, then these
could be described as merely cosmetic changes. 

But I firmly believe that gender and racial/national oppression are
*fundamental* to the existence of capitalism as a system, if for no other
reason than WITHOUT them, the overthrow of capitalism as solely a system of
CLASS exploitation would be almost automatic, as the communist manifesto
argues very cogently. And if that is so, then every time the color line or
gender barrier is pushed back, that registers a gain for working and
oppressed peoples and the anticapitalist cause. 

Notice I say "registers a gain" -- not necessarily "constitutes a gain" (1s
a victory in and of itself), without ambiguity or contradiction. Quite
often, the advance has been a millimeter at a time, in thousands of
individual incidents, and what seems like a breakthrough now is also a
pulling back by reaction to what it sees as a more compact and defensible
front line. 

It would be very hard to argue that in the 1930's, the election of Roosevelt
to his first term in office was in and of itself an advance for working
people. Yet quite clearly millions of working people took it that way, and
their faith that Roosevelt's victory made possible THEIR OWN victories
helped to bring about those working class victories. 

Everything I see, hear and feel suggests Obama's victory has not had the
effect of demobilizing and demoralizing the Black community, the Latino
community or other working and oppressed people. Quite the contrary. It is
also true that on a whole series of issues, from gay marriage to torture and
the war, one immediate effect has been to move some radicals and progressive
to the right, as they seek to transform in their own minds Obama's 100%
mainstream ruling class positions into progressive and even audaciously
radical positions. But it is also true that some of the people who seem to
be in this camp instead are trying to maneuver, carrying out what they view
as essentially a "flanking tactic." I think it is a bad tactic under these
circumstances, but that is the reality of it, not a huge number of political
people having taken leave of their senses.

However, something ELSE has been going on. Which is a shifting of the
political spectrum to the left (on some issues), and a broadening of the
spectrum to the left (on others).

The clearest example I think is gay marriage and related subjects (like
"don't ask, don't tell"). As things stand today, gay marriage/acceptance of
gays and lesbians is on the verge of becoming the mainstream American
position, just as around 1963-1965 the nominal, ostensible equality of Black
folks became part of official American ideology. 

Now this isn't JUST a subjective appreciation  on my part. If you look at
how people are answering gay marriage and related questions, "Public
Opinion" as registered by CNN's and other surveys is CLEARLY in motion. 

Obama's position -- "civil unions" which as first staked out was a
moderate/progressive "rose by any other name" and "half a loaf is better
than none"  compromise to supposedly move forwards is becoming the fallback
position of the reactionaries: "at least don't call it marriage" -- and
don't let flaming fags into the army.

And this AM on CNN's "American morning" they had the Asian-American Arabic
linguist who has become sort of the poster boy against "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell." And at one point in the interview, the CNN anchorette (and I know
anchorette is a "sexist" term, but the person who plays this role in the CNN
morning show very much plays her part as "anchorette," rather than a
non-gender-differentiated news reader/interviewer) asks this guy accusingly,
in essence, you were in the closet for X number of years why did you come
out a year or two ago? And I've seen interviews with this guy, but I never
noticed him answering quite this way. He said it was because he fell in
love. There he was at the age of 26 (I think that was it) and he was in love
for the first time and he felt uplifted and supported by this relationship
and he did not want to hide, lie or dissemble about it -- it was too
important to him.

I don't know if the CNN anchor is this good an actor or it was genuine, and
in a sense it doesn't matter. Because the reaction she communicated with her
expression and body language was surprise, but also understanding and
acceptance, and perhaps even support. And after a little more chit chat she
said good bye to the guest but added some half-awkward phrase like,
congratulations on your love or something like that -- the sort of vapid
sentiment that entertainment ancors always express to their guests upon
marriages and births. 

That what was presented (by the interviewee) as a "significant other"
relationship evoked an attempt at the clichéd anchor response tells me
something. Homosexual relationships are crossing a line, acquiring a
legitimacy that a few years ago they did not have. It may be that this one
anchor is somewhat ahead or a little behind the curve, but this is why these
kinds of folks get paid the big bucks -- because they're in tune with the
zeitgeist. 

*  *  *

Something similar, I believe, is happening more slowly and more
subterraneanly on the war, torture, etc. Dick Chaney's posture is quickly
evolving to being outside the mainstream political spectrum. Obama's
"compromising" positions are becoming the right wing position, that torture
may be wrong but we don't want to print the pictures or air the descriptions
because that would be running guns to Al Qaeda. And on the left,
increasingly space is opening up for "we need Nuremberg trials." 

Don't believe me? There was a right-wing Chicago disk jockey who arranged to
have himself waterboarded (on the air). This pompous and arrogant jerk had
argued waterboarding wasn't a big deal. But he didn't last 20 seconds, and
coming out said it was definitely and absolutely torture. In so many big
words. 

I don't believe this guy would have admitted that EXCEPT for the evolving
political climate. A year ago he wasn't proposing to do this test, but even
if he had done it, he would have said it was much worse than he imagined and
we shouldn't do it, but he would not have used the "T" word. 

*  *  *

What does this have to do with Cynthia McKinney and the formation of
"Dignity"? Just that I don't agree with those who think perspectives for
organizing in the Black community or in general have been negatively
affected by His Hopefulness's' ascension into the big house. I see his
election instead as a symptom of broader processes that suggest a drift or
shift to the left, and that in this sense is favorable in the medium term (a
year or two) for renewed organizing. 

But one thing that perhaps needs to be taken into account is that while
McKinney has proven herself quite righteous on many issues, she's never been
accused of having a great deal of interest in or skill at nuts-and-bolts
organizing. Sometimes an organization --or the idea of it-- is so right for
the moment that it almost organizes itself (like the Panthers among Blacks
around 1968 or so,  or SDS among [mostly white] campus radicals around the
same time). But usually it takes a lot of dedication and effort and
attention to detail and people skills. 

The truth is that here locally, where McKinney was the Congresswoman for
several years, the criticism of her among leftists who supported and worked
with/for her --folks from Soli, Freedom Road, Workers World, Malcolm x
Grassroots Movement and other nationalists, Latino radicals active in the
immigrant rights movement, etc., is that McKinney did not seem to understand
the importance of building an organization, either "her own" in the 4th CD,
or some other form. It was peculiar because she DID prioritize relating to
and working with existing community organizations of all kinds but did not
recognize that the people who had been drawn around/into her campaigns were
ALSO one.

Joaquin


________________________________________________
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