Re: [Pen-l] the Obama movement

["Jim Devine" <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

me:
>> I guess [move-on.org represents] a consumerist model
>> of politics, with the participants
>> playing the role of consumers of
>> a product offered by the entrepreneurial
>> move-on.org leadership.

Julio Huato wrote:
> Actually, IMO, the consumerist attitude is yours.  You imply that it is up to somebody else to offer us, politically agnostic smartasses, *the* adequate political instrument, *the* political instrument that meets our oh-so-lofty standards.<

BS! I don't know where you got the idea what my attitude on this
question. To attribute such opinions to me seems arrogant, while such
arrogance is a key element of top-down politics. Since I don't claim
to be able to read anyone's mind (especially via e-mail), it's
possible that it's not arrogance but narrow thinking or ignorance --
or some other, unknown, problem. In any event, it's rude to attribute
attitudes to me in that way.

I wasn't talking about the need any kind of "adequate" political
"instrument" according to my standards. No. What I'm saying is that
the means used (e.g., the organization) can't be separated from the
ends actually achieved. Thus, we have to analyze what kind of means
are used rather than taking them uncritically.[*] If move-on.org is
indeed "a consumerist model of politics, with the participants playing
the role of consumers of a product offered by the entrepreneurial
move-on.org leadership," then it's likely to produce a top-down focus
group- and poll-driven group, like so many other "paid staff and
mailing list" organizations that clutter my in-boxes with appeals for
funds.[**] It will end up with the members as passive participants,
deciding whether or not to send a check to the organization. (Hey,
even better, if you sign here, we'll deduct a monthly donation from
your checking account!)

The need for grass-roots democratic organization is to serve the
"oh-so-lofty standards" of the _actual people_ in those organizations;
to me, that's what's meant by a good organization (in terms of means,
not ends -- see next paragraph). If the members don't have control
over the organization's elite, they eventually see the organization
run by those in the elite -- who see political organizations as
"instruments" for their purposes. The groups then tend to reduce
collective organizations to tools that can allow the leadership to
achieve their career goals and a narrowed and rigid set of top
down-determined objectives, i.e., the "party line": this is true for
DP hacks, social democrats, so-called "Leninists," corporate
bureaucrats, and a whole lot of other people in leadership.

Now, it's quite possible that a truly democratic organization can be a
bad thing (i.e., have bad aims). For example, a "white power"
organization could be democratic in its organization. But such group
would at least serve their memberships in the long run rather than
becoming vehicles for their leaderships. Whether or not that's a good
thing is another issue.

> But it is not [the job of others to give organizational advice].  People who take the political initiative [e.g., the leadership of move-on.org?] can only create tools that fit their view of the  world, tools that one way or another reflect their interest.  They  don't have to cater to us.  That attitude -- passivity, alienation --  is the problem, not the solution.<

The above is ambiguous: as noted in the bracketed question, it's
unclear who it is who is alleged to have taken the "political
initiative," the leadership or the followership. I assume that it's
the former, who control the financial resources, the organizational
infrastructure, and the like.

_Of course_ they (the leadership of top-down organizations) don't have
to cater to us. But we can use a "social science" perspective (or a
materialist conception of history if you will) to try to understand
what's going on. It's good to have some understanding _ahead of time_
what kinds of organizations (like move-on.org) encouraged passivity
and alienation in the long run even if they involve more than
cheer-leading and obedience to the Line in the short run.

I don't know why Julio attributes a belief in passivity and alienation
to me. I criticize X and don't offer an alternative Y explicitly (if
nothing else due to limits on time and space). Therefore, he
attributes belief in a third alternative Z (passivity and alienation)
to me. That's illogical.

BTW, I was not dissing the membership of move-on.org (who might be the
"people who take the political initiative" above). If people like that
kind of politics, that's fine with me. I may argue with them, but
that's different from my critique of the organization. It's wrong to
conflate the people in an organization with the organization itself.
The latter is an institution, partly created by the people in it.

> If Jim or anyone of us can create something better than Move On, the SWP, or whathaveyou, what is keeping us from creating it? ...  <

The best organization is one created by the mass of people (the "grass
roots") themselves and then controlled by them. Obviously, that's
messy. There are always self-styled Leninists and DP bureaucrats who
want to take the organization over for their own purposes. More often
perhaps, there are well-meaning leaders, who initially represent the
membership well, who then slowly morph into top-down leaders who see
the organization as an instrument for their purposes. (Sometimes this
is a response to lone "cranks" who lecture others at meetings about
their deviant versions of the organization's line. Oh, those "Sparts"
are such a pain; let's exclude them. Next, let's exclude those who
complain about the lack of bottom-up decision-making...)

This occurs not just because of the personal flaws of the leadership
(flaws shared by most of the followership, BTW) but because the pace
and intensity of the collective effort slows or stops. This lull
occurs partly because people don't have enough time or energy to
struggle politically every day. It also occurs because the opposition
to the movement (the capitalists, "city hall," the DP's sources of big
money, etc.) undermines the collective organization and any kind of
democratic control over its elite by the base.

In the end, collective democratic movements may seem pointless to
some. But if the organizations engage in mass education -- and more
importantly, mass self-education in actual experience with political
action -- people can learn things that shape their lives and political
attitudes. If they actually have some control over the organization
for awhile, they can see the importance of such control and also a
sense that people can run their own lives collectively rather than
being reduced to consumers of some product offered by competing
elites.

Organizations have fleeting lives. In the past, this has been most
true of democratically-run large organizations (because they have been
opposed from so many different directions). It's the education that
people get that's crucial, the sense that "together we can change the
world" whether or not the leaders go along. This can have a positive
effect even after the democratic organization fades -- but nothing is
guaranteed.

I don't get the reference to the SWP. I've never had more than short
conversations with those folks. Their newspaper always seemed like a
version of the NY TIMES rewritten to fit the party line.

[*] I remember reading this in college, back when dinosaurs roamed the
earth: In THE REBEL, Albert Camus said the ends don't justify the
means; rather, the means can't be separated from the ends. If you
follow terrorist means (his example), you're likely to end up with
terrorist ends. He applied this to reject Algerian terrorism. Alas, he
somehow missed the fact that the French colonialists were themselves
terrorists, likely more so than the Algerian resistance.

[**] These days, if you give money to a good cause, they punish you by
selling your name & address to another mailing list organization, so
you end up with junk mail in large quantities. Does this not promote
alienation and passivity?
-- 
Jim Devine /  "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange
days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l