Re: Nick Cohen on Thomas Frank - new suburan poor

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 9/13/2004 4:59:47 PM Central Standard Time, lnp3@xxxxxxxxx writes:

 

I think the left should aspire to the German left of the 1920s that fought bravely for socialism (despite being hamstrung by a feckless Comintern) while backing homosexual rights. The left has had such a huge disconnect with these issues in the USA because the once hegemonic CPUSA regarded Stalin's family-oriented and conservative policies as a legitimate _expression_ of socialism despite all evidence to the contrary in the early 1920s. It befell upon the shoulders of the academic left largely to reclaim earlier traditions. <

 

Comment

 

Data outling the "new poor" in America and the evening up of suburan poverty with that of the central industrial centers (inner city blues) has to be looked at to understand the social shift underway and what sections of the working class are being pushed into motion. The new suburan poor are absolutely outside the political sphere of the Democratic Party and everyone else for that matter.

 

For myself this issue of the "left" is complex . . . even trying to define the left but I think it a mistake to connect today's political environment with the CPUSA and "Stalin's family-oriented and conservative policies . . . in the early 1920s."

 

Rather . . . it seems that the poltiical configuration and the ideological assault we face today has to do with dramatic changes that has taken place over the past sixty years and specifically since WWII. I really do not like this "stupid white men" ideologically categroy outside a form/forum of humor designed to expose our weaknesses and face our insecurity. Nor do I believe ones attitude towards homosexuality has very much to do with the disconnect of the left (whatever that means) with the social movement for two reasons: first the issue of homosexuality has never been the cutting edge of the social movement in America during any period of time during the past 100 years . . . and this is not to discount various demonstrations and protest.

 

Secondly . . . the social movement itself lacks a distinct form, driving ideology or distinct organizational forms/forums today. What exists is an array of groups and organizational penning away at various issues.

 

From roughly the end of the Second World Imperial War to the outbreak of Montgomery Alabama represented a shift in the leading edge of the social movement from a motion driven by the trade union section to the assertion of the black masses against Jim Crow segregation. The communists, socialist and progressives had correctly thrown their meager forces into the industrial union movement because that was the dynamic forward moving section of the working class . . . as a social motion galvanizing society at large.

 

Mechanization of agriculture and this shifting of million from agriculture to industry demanded that the wall of segregation be shattered and the leading edge of the social movement shifted. The point is that the CPUSA could not tell many of their members to quit their jobs and shift to the battle to desegregate. Rather . . . various groups did the best they could and had to fight from wherever they were located. (I am not soft on the CPUSA but their policy is not the issue at this point). The point is that a shift in the social struggle took place and it takes some time for any political grouping to catch up with a dynamic shift and this includes the various political organizations of the bourgeoisie.

 

I do not believe the inability to shift is the result of "stupid white men" or a "family orientation" or the failure to understand the revolutionary significance of the issue of homosexuality.

 

The growth of the student movement during the late 1950s and early 1960s represented another shift generated on the basis of the democratic movement to desegregate and a new generation were thrown into the struggle . . . becoming galvanized on the basis of the antiwar movement. These shifts represent ideological breaches with the past. Many of these young people discovered Marxism through various mediums.

 

Another shift began with the 1965 Watts Rebellion, the growth of the Black Power Movement and the political juncture reached in Detroit 1967. These events represent breaches and shifts in the political and ideological sphere . . . that in my opinion have nothing to do with "Stalin family orientation" or a failure to understand homosexual rights.

 

Black Power was really nothing more than a specific American motion where in various ethnic groups or nationality groups evolved a certain political clout within the system based on their expansion. When we shed the Marxist rhetoric . . . the African American integration into the electoral arena occurred on the same basis as that of the Irish, Polish, Italian or German . . . based on neighborhoods and districts.

 

I do not believe this distinct American pattern of achieving political clout within our electoral system has anything to do with "stupid white men" . . . Stalin and family orientation or homosexual rights. Each time the left has shifted to accomodate the leading edge of the social movement. A leading edge of the social movement is "leading" because it galvanizes society at large.

 

Between roughly 1965 and Big Jesses run for President (Rainbow Coalition) expressed another shift in the political and ideological realm . . . as liberals, progressives, socialists and communists attempted to adjust to the ideological assaults of the Reagan Revolution. Within all these subtle shifts the role of women was being reformulated and made manifest as they came to the fore in every sector of the social movement . . . and as women. Yes, . . . there was resistance in as much as men oppress women . . . as opposed to oppression by a mystical "system."

 

I would not call the resistance to the Women's Movement "Stupid white men" . . . but "Stupid Men" clinging to a historical privilege and ideology.

 

During the late 1980s and 1990s the social movement fragmented and was fought on the basis of various identity groups. Gay Rights burst into the social arena as a political issue.  I do not believe that "Stalin's family orientation" was the roots of resistance to certain aspects of Gay Rights . . . but rather historically evolved belief systems that go back several thousands of years. I most certainly do not believe or have ever believed that ones attitude towards say "Gay Marriage" is a litmus test for ones progressive fight against evil. Nor do I believe or have ever believed that ones support for say . . . "Black Reparations" is a litmus test . . . determining if one fits into the category called "Stupid White Men."

 

Some of the disconnect of the left is based in the shifts of the social struggle and some is based in the divergent political motion within the working class itself that tends to move in different directions at the same time. A critical aspect of the disconnect resides within the bourgeoisie as a class . . . that no longer really has a connection with any significant section of the working class in its social struggle. A section of the bourgeoisie supported the Civil Rights Movement as its self interest and the Black Power Movement.

 

This meant that we has political and ideological space . . . maneuvering room in the ideological sphere. There was a period in our history when a section of the bourgeoisie supported the leading section of the trade union movement in the form of the Roosevelt Coalition.

 

The new suburan poor is going to behave like the inner city poor. In the main we are not going to get any help from any section of capital. Here is the disconnect that is going to take time to overcome . . . as the new form of struggle emerge. See . . . the new suburban poor in all probability is not going to wage its struggle on the basis of equality because that is not what it is experiencing. It is experiencing increasing poverty and we will adjust to the task.

 

Melvin P.