Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets

[Jurriaan Bendien <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marty wrote:

The danger
> comes of course because [Krugman] is not advancing any kind of radical
vision
> of change.

What bloody danger, for heaven's sake ? Who is creating the danger ? When
two million humans die in Iraq because of the total effects of war
destruction and economic chaos in two decades, resulting in great part from
deliberate policies by imperialist governments and the arms industry - even
if we cannot measure that at the present time in an exact way, causing
holocaust denial - who is creating the danger ? Well maybe you cannot expect
Krugman to advance a radical vision of change, maybe that is up to the
socialists, a work of theory and practice. You can say about Bill Clinton
what you like, but in certain respects he WAS radical, in changing the
political culture of the USA, challenging redneck conservatism all over the
place and breaking through traditional mentalities. Okay, you might strongly
disagree with his policies and say, well there was strong economic growth
anyway, but the thing is that there is something to be learnt politically
from what he did, and if you just moralise, you miss that, you don't learn
anything politically.

> Said differently the problem is largely rooted in the lack of political
> clarity in our movement.

This is just crap or frustration in my opinion. I was over in Oakland
knowing very well that Peter Camejo does not lack any "political clarity"
and that the Frontlines people do not lack any "political clarity". The
point is different: you have to know how to plug into the real consciousness
of real Americans, and you don't do it by bashing the Marxist bible and you
don't do it by moralistic ruminations and you don't do it by continuously
questioning the validity of what other people do and suggesting that they
should be doing something else. Just look at the pathology of American
politics today: because economic events, political alignments and foreign
policy don't work out the way politicians wanted them to, they start to
blame other people, they search endlessly for somebody else to blame things
on, they don't have any constructive policy of their own, it is all
reactive. All  I am saying is that the Left is not just reactive, it doesn't
even tackle the debate, but the point is that there is no good reason for
this at all, the world's your oyster. If you are afraid of the danger of
Krugman and ignore the danger of imperialism in the Middle-East, then that's
like saying you won't have appropriate sex with a person who has AIDS on the
ground that he's got the 'flu.

J.