Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marvin Gandall wrote:
>
>
> Finally, it seems Carrol has gone anarchist on us:

:-) Anarchism is so completely dead that one really need not try
particularly hard to distinguish oneself from it.

In 1875 after the defeat of the Paris Commune it would not have been
possible to predict the political forms of the revolutions in Russia and
China, nor would it have been possible to predict (I think) the treason
of the leadership in 1914. And the new forms did not "drop from the sky"
or come from revolutionary theorists sitting around and (Gary Hart
fashion) dreaming up "new ideas." Probably "new ideas" emerge from
within old practices, but only if the old practices are pushed hard, as
Yoshie is doing and urging others to do. When I say she is a bit too
much wrapped up in the Greens, I refer primarily to further theorizing
of and polemics for her position on the lbo and pen-l maillists; Ohio is
one of the states where left activity might seriously hurt the DP, so
clearly in her local situation it is impossible to be "too wrapped up"
in the Green campaign.

For 75 years or so the DP has successfully muffled most forms of mass
struggle most of the time. The CPUSA seemed anxious to meet that fate,
becoming a mere appendage at times to the DP. (During the Truman Era --
miscalled McCarthy Era -- DP politicians and their lackeys in the labor
movement exercised direct repression. Humphrey destroyed the left forces
in the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party. Under Reuther & Meany the CIO, AFL,
& AFL-CIO never even really pressured the DP to push for the repeal of
Taft-Hartley.) The McGovern campaign absorbed the energies of the
anti-war movement and the militancy of the women's movement was absorbed
into the polite lobbying through which ERA ratification was sought. Had
Roosevelt had his way with Governor Murphy of Michigan the sit-down
strikes might well have been militarily crushed.

There will never be a "good time" for leftists to break away from
subordination to this enemy; 2004 is perhaps a better time than most.
Particularly telling is that the closer we get to the election the more
most ABBs, instead of emphasizing that this election is (allegedly)
_different_, increasingly spout the same rhetoric that we have been
hearing for 30 years, and which will _always_ apply: NLRB; judicial
appointments, abortion, etc. This is not ABB; it is Remain with the DP
forever. Any argument in 2004 that would have been at all relevant in
2000 is an implicit admission (regardless of how much verbal criticism
of the DP accompanies it) that this election is not special but just one
more occasion on which to remain tied to the tail of the DP.

But these arguments merely heave to&fro on these lists, which brings me
back to my suggestion to Yoshie: I agree with her arguments but believe
that the topic has been exhausted as far as pen-l and lbo are concerned.
They may well become relevant again _after the election_ but for now, as
I suggested, forms of commodity fetishism, among other topics, might be
more fruitful at the present time. Concern with November 2004 here on
pen-l and lbo is more like scratching an itch than discussing topics of
concern.

Carrol
>
> > I think Yoshie has gotten a bit too wrapped up in the Greens (in the
> > 2004 election). We cannot know the form that socialist activity will
> > take in the future, but we can be fairly certain that it will not be
> > electoral and will involve mass resistance to imperialist policies.
> > Arguments against the Greens are equally arguments against paying any
> > attention at all to elections at any level.
>
> Marv Gandall