SocialistWorker.org on the US Elections [Archive]

Lucretia

2nd November 2010, 21:55

Care to elaborate?

Sure, I'll elaborate. But before I do, I want to make it clear that I am not some sort of sectarian hack who just wants to shit all over the ISO. I think the ISO does some valuable things, such as their bi-monthly periodical, which (while I have reservations about some of its content) probably exposes basic Marxian ideas to a broader range of people than who otherwise come into contact with them.

Still, even you must admit that the ISO's bandwagoning on the Obama hype was pretty shameful for a revolutionary party. Take the Jan-Feb 2009 issue of ISR. The cover story was "Politics and Struggle in a New Era: Yes We Can!" The "analysis" provided under this vacuous slogan (spun by a few corporate-connected political consultants advising Obama) was that Obama's election was "a watershed event" creating a "bigger ideological opening for radical alternatives." Most of the article was an extended speculation on how grassroots struggle might make Obama more liberal, perhaps even as liberal as that great revolutionary Franklin Roosevelt.

Apparently it never crossed the ISR editors' mind that Obama's election, followed as it predictably was by scapegoating of the left, might actually shrink the ideological opening for radical alternatives. Or that in posing as the only viable alternative to the right, in assuming the mantle of the "progressive" while pursuing neoliberal policies, Obama might similarly demoralize independent activists or people looking for a revolutionary alternative.

The problem basically boils down to what I consider to be the ISO's main strategic and analytic flaw. It equates the success of the Democratic party with opportunity rather than a sign of shrinking opportunities under capitalist retrenchment. It slips into the facile mode of thinking which posits that, just because the Democratic Party's positions are in the abstract closer to the ISO's than the Republican Party's is, that the success of the Democratic Party is good news for the ISO. It basically interpellates itself on the linear ideological spectrum that the capitalist media in this country uses to arbitrarily categorize people's political views (and thereby prevent important coalitions, anti-capitalist or otherwise, from forming). Only, it sees itself as to the left of the Democrats, as a counterforce to the radical right that will help the Democrats succeed in passing "progressive" legislation.

Even as it disavows working within the Democratic party, the ISO still very much sees itself as a movement whose goals are to be realized through the Democratic party.

OriginalGumby

2nd November 2010, 22:00

Here maybe you missed our coverage
Before
http://socialistworker.org/2008/11/25/clinton-era-part-two
http://socialistworker.org/2008/04/11/big-business-switches-sides
http://socialistworker.org/2008/02/08/will-your-vote-end-war
http://socialistworker.org/2008/07/09/to-politics-as-usual
http://socialistworker.org/2008/04/25/speak-for-working-people
http://socialistworker.org/2008/08/26/rhetoric-and-reality
http://socialistworker.org/2008/08/08/protesting-the-dnc
http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/27/candidate-makes-right-turns
http://socialistworker.org/2008/12/16/intro-to-obamanomics
http://socialistworker.org/2009/01/21/looking-forward-to-change
http://socialistworker.org/2008/10/24/what-happens-after-november-4
http://socialistworker.org/2008/10/22/not-voting-for-obama

During
http://socialistworker.org/2008/11/05/election-night-journal

After
http://socialistworker.org/2010/10/04/change-we-didnt-get
http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/29/next-fdr-or-next-hoover
http://socialistworker.org/2009/12/09/selling-out-health-care-reform
http://socialistworker.org/2010/01/22/siege-of-haiti
http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/08/change-lite-from-obama
http://socialistworker.org/2009/07/30/socialists-for-obama
http://socialistworker.org/2009/07/29/who-does-obama-answer-to
http://socialistworker.org/2010/06/22/democrats-and-the-border
http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/13/plot-to-steal-our-future
http://socialistworker.org/2010/10/20/democrats-scare-out-the-vote
http://socialistworker.org/2010/10/19/new-stage-in-the-war-on-dissent

Lucretia

2nd November 2010, 22:05

Here maybe you missed our coverage
Before
...

During
...

After

Actually all these articles, which I have already ready by the way, simply prove my point. The ISO obsesses relentlessly about what the Democrats and Obama are doing because the ISO sees the Democratic party's actions as the barometer for how successful its own work is. Rather than seeing a leftward shift among democrats as a byproduct of independent organizing, they tend to see it as the goal of their organizing. This means that their organizing isn't really independent because it is premised around the assumption that the Democratic party is the ISO's channel to real political power and decision-making.

RED DAVE

2nd November 2010, 22:11

Even as it disavows working within the Democratic party, the ISO still very much sees itself as a movement whose goals are to be realize through the Democratic party.I could more-or-less agree with you, with reservations (How's that for hedging?), until this line.

What you are saying here is either that the ISO is social democratic or liberal, and basically agrees with the Democratic Party, or the ISO has some kind of realignment strategy to achieve socialism through the Democratic Party.

Neither of these are true.

RED DAVE

Lucretia

2nd November 2010, 22:15

I could more-or-less agree with you, with reservations (How's that for hedging?), until this line.

What you are saying here is either that the ISO is social democratic or liberal, and basically agrees with the Democratic Party, or the ISO has some kind of realignment strategy to achieve socialism through the Democratic Party.

Neither of these are true.

RED DAVE

What I am saying is that it's a confused party. I think its members view themselves as Marxists, hold relatively orthodox Marxist views, but then put into practice a politics that is quintessentially social democratic. Take another example: Sherry Wolf's book on Sexuality and Socialism. I read that book from cover to cover, and not once did I find a specific policy proposal dealing with same-sex-attraction that was not also supported by mainstream democrats. At some point you just have to call a spade a spade.

OriginalGumby

2nd November 2010, 22:47

Sure, I'll elaborate. But before I do, I want to make it clear that I am not some sort of sectarian hack who just wants to shit all over the ISO. I think the ISO does some valuable things, such as their bi-monthly periodical, which (while I have reservations about some of its content) probably exposes basic Marxian ideas to a broader range of people than who otherwise come into contact with them.

Glad to hear

Still, even you must admit that the ISO's bandwagoning on the Obama hype was pretty shameful for a revolutionary party. Take the Jan-Feb 2009 issue of ISR. The cover story was "Politics and Struggle in a New Era: Yes We Can!" The "analysis" provided under this vacuous slogan (spun by a few corporate-connected political consultants advising Obama) was that Obama's election was "a watershed event" creating a "bigger ideological opening for radical alternatives." Most of the article was an extended speculation on how grassroots struggle might make Obama more liberal, perhaps even as liberal as that great revolutionary Franklin Roosevelt.

First of all, Si Se Puede! (also in the title) was the slogan of the Immigrant Rights movement from the recent emerging struggles in 06 and continues to this day. Obama's campaign expropriated it. I don't think that using that slogan as a way of connecting radical politics to the public is unreasonable. Unionists used FDR's rhetoric to help union organizing drives despite clear differences in interests; we never paint FDR as a revolutionary... I also don't think that it is problematic to be interested in connecting with people's enthusiasm while still being honest about what Obama is. It was only the truth that the election was significant for many reasons that are laid out in our literature. The fact is that the last two years have seen activism in different areas, people breaking from the Dems, and people being interested in Marxism. These are the basic building blocks of a new independent activist left in the US. The Obama election was a part of what happened politically to make this possible and I think we were right about it from the beginning. We were never on the band-wagon of Obama hype as you say. What does that even mean? That we supported the campaign?

Apparently it never crossed the ISR editors' mind that Obama's election, following as it predictably was by attempts to scapegoat the left, might actually shrink the ideological opening for radical alternatives. Or that in posing as the only viable alternative to the right, in assuming the mantle of the "progressive" while pursuing neoliberal policies, Obama might similarly demoralize independent activists or people looking for a revolutionary alternative.

Do you think that the ideological opening is shrinking? I can't agree. The mainstream election coverage is terrible. The majority of the US is still leftwing despite the lack of enthusiasm in supporting the Dems this election. That is because the Dems have shown themselves incapable. Many people are frustrated and that has and will continue to express itself with leftwing activism even if temporarily demoralized by a Republican victory today. The interest in actual left wing change has not disappeared. It has yet to be expressed fully.

The problem basically boils down to what I consider to be the ISO's main strategic and analytic flaw. It equates the success of the Democratic party with opportunity rather than a sign of shrinking opportunities under capitalist retrenchment. It slips into the facile mode of thinking which posits that, just because the Democratic Party's positions are in the abstract closer to the ISO's than the Republican Party's is, that the success of the Democratic Party is good news for the ISO. It basically interpellates itself on the linear ideological spectrum that the capitalist media in this country uses to arbitrarily categorize people's political views (and thereby prevent important coalitions, anti-capitalist or otherwise, from forming). Only, it sees itself as to the left of the Democrats, as a counterforce to the radical right that will help the Democrats succeed in passing "progressive" legislation.

You are incorrect. This is not at all about the Democratic Party's positions being abstractly "better" than the GOP. It was always about the millions of enthusiastic people who wanted change and still do. We do not see ourselves as "helping" the Dems pass legislation. We want to make whatever party is in power concede to the social movements that we are building

Even as it disavows working within the Democratic party, the ISO still very much sees itself as a movement whose goals are to be realize through the Democratic party.

What does this mean? Can movements not raise demands of the Democrats, or the Republicans for that matter, without being somehow complicit in their rule? How would you suggest we organize?

Lucretia

2nd November 2010, 23:14

First of all, Si Se Puede! (also in the title) was the slogan of the Immigrant Rights movement from the recent emerging struggles in 06 and continues to this day. Obama's campaign expropriated it. I don't think that using that slogan as a way of connecting radical politics to the public is unreasonable.

Si Se Puede may very well have also been used by the immigrant rights movement and in the abstract might not necessarily refer to Obama. But it is clear in the context of the article that it was intended to be a reference to Obama's victory. Why else would the article then go on in the very first sentence to claim that Obama's victory -- not the immigrants' victory -- represented a "watershed event"? Let's be honest about what the article was doing: it was expressing excitement over Obama's victory because it viewed that victory as a sign of opportunity rather than a sign of the opportunity's foreclosure by the establishment.

I also don't think that it is problematic to be interested in connecting with people's enthusiasm while still being honest about what Obama is.Not in the abstract, but again we're talking about the concrete here. Trying to connect with people's enthusiasm in the abstract certainly isn't bad. What matters is how its done. Saying that Obama represents an opportunity is not being honest about what Obama is. That's as concisely and politely as I can phrase it.

It was only the truth that the election was significant for many reasons that are laid out in our literature. The fact is that the last two years have seen activism in different areas, people breaking from the Dems, and people being interested in Marxism.Here we're seeing more confusion of the kind I often associate with the ISO. You mention Obama's victory was significant, then appear to try to support that point by mentioning people breaking from the Dems and being interested in Marx. Are you suggesting that Obama is instrumental in getting people to take Marxism seriously? Are you implying that Obama's "watershed" election was a sign that people are breaking from the Dems?

These are the basic building blocks of a new independent activist left in the US. The Obama election was a part of what happened politically to make this possible and I think we were right about it from the beginning.Obama's election was historically significant for the sole reason that it showed that capitalism does not necessarily require oppression on the basis of race. It only requires oppression on the basis of class. But let's not confuse this historical significance with significance in terms of advancing the struggle for socialism. I am still waiting to see a specific argument, not to mention evidence to support this argument, expressing how you or the ISO thinks that Obama's election has facilitated rather than demoralized socialist organizing, or that it set preconditions for the renewal of independent socialist organizing.

We were never on the band-wagon of Obama hype as you say. What does that even mean? That we supported the campaign?It means that you bought into the illusion that Obama's election was a "watershed" in any way besides showing that black people can wield power on behalf of the bourgeois state as well as white people. I am supposed to be excited about that why?

Do you think that the ideological opening is shrinking? I can't agree.I don't think there ever was an ideological opening, and to think that it was represents a serious misreading of the political climate. People's rejection of the Republican party, and wooing by Obama and the Democrats, was not a sign of some significant ideological opening. It was a clear sign of how hapless the left in the United States had been, how unable it was to capitalize off the recession. People wanting things to be different is not an ideological opening. Heck, the tea party people want "change." Does that represent an ideological opening for the ISO also? An ideological opening is one where people begin to suspect that the country has systemic problems not capable of being resolved by simply turning to a black presidential candidate. Obama's election demonstrates that this was not the case.

The mainstream election coverage is terrible. The majority of the US is still leftwing despite the lack of enthusiasm in supporting the Dems this election. That is because the Dems have shown themselves incapable. Many people are frustrated and that has and will continue to express itself with leftwing activism even if temporarily demoralized by a Republican victory today. The interest in actual left wing change has not disappeared. It has yet to be expressed fully.I don't think the majority of the country is leftwing, though I agree that many people have become disillusioned with the democrats. But has this - rather than Obama's election - translated into an ideological opening? How many people are writing off Obama's failures as the product of systemic issues that cannot be resolved through electoral reform? If it's significant, then THAT represents an ideological opening.

You are incorrect. This is not at all about the Democratic Party's positions being abstractly "better" than the GOP. It was always about the millions of enthusiastic people who wanted change and still do.Then I ask of you once more: how do the tea-partiers who want change in the form of dismantling government not also represent an ideological opening?

We do not see ourselves as "helping" the Dems pass legislation. We want to make whatever party is in power concede to the social movements that we are buildingExactly. You want the parties in power to concede to you and listen to you and do what you say. This doesn't sound like a party that is trying to effect change independent of the two-party establishment.

What does this mean? Can movements not raise demands of the Democrats, or the Republicans for that matter, without being somehow complicit in their rule? How would you suggest we organize?Of course movements should raise demands, but again how it raises those demands and how it envisions those demands being met are not irrelevant questions.

OriginalGumby

2nd November 2010, 23:20

Actually all these articles, which I have already ready by the way, simply prove my point. The ISO obsesses relentlessly about what the Democrats and Obama are doing because the ISO sees the Democratic party's actions as the barometer for how successful its own work is. Rather than seeing a leftward shift among democrats as a byproduct of independent organizing, they tend to see it as the goal of their organizing. This means that their organizing isn't really independent because it is premised around the assumption that the Democratic party is the ISO's channel to real political power and decision-making.

Sorry, what??? No where is the idea that the Democratic Party is a channel for socialists to have political power or decision-making ability expressed in anything we have ever said ever.

Of course we talk about the government and analyze the Obama administration, this does not mean we are lobbying group. It is wise to understand the political context what we operate in including what both parties do. What do you suggest instead? Of course we see independent organizing as the source of social change and there is a relationship between the strength of movements and what governments do. How else is it possible to actually organize social struggle if not to encourage people to demand that the government concede reforms while also really understanding what sort of pressure we are actually creating which is not that much at the moment. This however is not our end goal, winning a bunch reforms is not our strategy for getting rid of capitalism.

What I am saying is that it's a confused party. I think its members view themselves as Marxists, hold relatively orthodox Marxist views, but then put into practice a politics that is quintessentially social democratic. Take another example: Sherry Wolf's book on Sexuality and Socialism. I read that book from cover to cover, and not once did I find a specific policy proposal dealing with same-sex-attraction that was not also supported by mainstream democrats. At some point you just have to call a spade a spade.

Sorry, What??? What exactly are you talking about? What policy proposals are you referring to? Is our sexual liberation not radical enough for you because the Dems nominally say they are for it? Please explain that tidbit. And I think its totally backwards to say that in league with the dems because our interests in equality are the same as them when the dems haven't done anything but resist the LGBT struggle for equality.

Also here is Sherry Wolf on the LGBT struggle and the Democrats
http://socialistworker.org/2009/05/26/democrats-and-marriage-equality

Lucretia

2nd November 2010, 23:23

Sorry, What??? What exactly are you talking about? What policy proposals are you referring to? Is our sexual liberation not radical enough for you because the Dems nominally say they are for it? Please explain that tidbit. And I think its totally backwards to say that in league with the dems because our interests in equality are the same as them when the dems haven't done anything but resist the LGBT struggle for equality.

I don't think what I wrote was particularly difficult to decipher. I said that Sherry Wolf is in full agreement with the Democratic platform regarding sexuality. She wants nothing more and nothing less than the enactment of that platform. Can you name me a single policy relating to the family or to sexuality that Wolf proposes, which the Democratic party doesn't also fully endorse as part of its platform?

OriginalGumby

4th November 2010, 15:51

Si Se Puede may very well have also been used by the immigrant rights movement and in the abstract might not necessarily refer to Obama. But it is clear in the context of the article that it was intended to be a reference to Obama's victory. Why else would the article then go on in the very first sentence to claim that Obama's victory -- not the immigrants' victory -- represented a "watershed event"? Let's be honest about what the article was doing: it was expressing excitement over Obama's victory because it viewed that victory as a sign of opportunity rather than a sign of the opportunity's foreclosure by the establishment.

We never said that Obama was an opportunity, that was you. What was the opportunity was that millions were interested in politics in some way and were interested in a campaign that referenced the labor movement and the civil rights movement. It was always about the population in a very contradictory way being more open to real left politics. I'm my experience this was true. Sure the capitalists wanted to use the Obama election as a way of maintaining control of left politics, but I feel like they unleashed something politically that is yet to be realized and that undermines their intentions. This is not to say that Obama is a pathway for us to have poltical power or any of that which you accuse the ISO of believing.

Not in the abstract, but again we're talking about the concrete here. Trying to connect with people's enthusiasm in the abstract certainly isn't bad. What matters is how its done. Saying that Obama represents an opportunity is not being honest about what Obama is. That's as concisely and politely as I can phrase it.

Again, Obama is not the opportunity. The millions of people who may have supported the campaign whose political ideas are fluid and respond to the experience of Obama's betrayals are the opportunity.

Here we're seeing more confusion of the kind I often associate with the ISO. You mention Obama's victory was significant, then appear to try to support that point by mentioning people breaking from the Dems and being interested in Marx. Are you suggesting that Obama is instrumental in getting people to take Marxism seriously? Are you implying that Obama's "watershed" election was a sign that people are breaking from the Dems?

I was attempting to layout a political process by which some number of people radicalize from the election and the failure of the Democrats to actually do anything as well as their involvement in activism. This process is making it easier to convince people of Marxism and to break from the Dems. The election itself of course does not mean this, but two years have gone by. Have you not experienced this yourself in your organizing? I have and that is all the evidence I need.

Obama's election was historically significant for the sole reason that it showed that capitalism does not necessarily require oppression on the basis of race. It only requires oppression on the basis of class. But let's not confuse this historical significance with significance in terms of advancing the struggle for socialism. I am still waiting to see a specific argument, not to mention evidence to support this argument, expressing how you or the ISO thinks that Obama's election has facilitated rather than demoralized socialist organizing, or that it set preconditions for the renewal of independent socialist organizing.

First of all, capitalism still relies on racism. The criminal injustice system was not uprooted, the death penalty still exists, racism against immigrants and Arab and Muslims is still strong and needed by capitalism. I already said the rest above.

It means that you bought into the illusion that Obama's election was a "watershed" in any way besides showing that black people can wield power on behalf of the bourgeois state as well as white people. I am supposed to be excited about that why?

I think you don't really understand the 08 elections then. I think what was so significant was how the population was affected by the campaign which was more than them just supporting a Dem again in their minds. In their minds they could actually expect things and push for them which is a step forward from despair and feeling powerless.

I don't think there ever was an ideological opening, and to think that it was represents a serious misreading of the political climate. People's rejection of the Republican party, and wooing by Obama and the Democrats, was not a sign of some significant ideological opening. It was a clear sign of how hapless the left in the United States had been, how unable it was to capitalize off the recession. People wanting things to be different is not an ideological opening. Heck, the tea party people want "change." Does that represent an ideological opening for the ISO also? An ideological opening is one where people begin to suspect that the country has systemic problems not capable of being resolved by simply turning to a black presidential candidate. Obama's election demonstrates that this was not the case.

Again it is a years long process of this opportunity to be realized, it is not just the election itself. People are already understanding that it is not sufficient to just support Obama and that there are more serious problems and that activism is necessary and that their are more systematic problems. And no the tea party is not an opening for the ISO (give me a break), it is however an opening for the far right which has said so itself.

I don't think the majority of the country is leftwing, though I agree that many people have become disillusioned with the democrats. But has this - rather than Obama's election - translated into an ideological opening? How many people are writing off Obama's failures as the product of systemic issues that cannot be resolved through electoral reform? If it's significant, then THAT represents an ideological opening.

Well what I mean by leftwing is that the majority of the population support things like single payer healthcare, ending US military occupations, LGBT equality, etc. This is despite the Republicans winning.

Please don't start a linguistics debate...

I think many people are starting to draw the conclusions about the system and will continue to.

Then I ask of you once more: how do the tea-partiers who want change in the form of dismantling government not also represent an ideological opening?

For the far right, not for us. Don't be silly.

Exactly. You want the parties in power to concede to you and listen to you and do what you say. This doesn't sound like a party that is trying to effect change independent of the two-party establishment.

Of course movements should raise demands, but again how it raises those demands and how it envisions those demands being met are not irrelevant questions.

This is a strange statement. How exactly do we demand change then? From who? And how do we connect this with thousands and millions of other people in your opinion?

I think that we most definitely raise demands upon the state as the executive of the bourgeoisie and encourage others to do the same at this stage and that social movements can be built upon this basis and can win. What would you have us do instead?

OriginalGumby

4th November 2010, 15:56

I don't think what I wrote was particularly difficult to decipher. I said that Sherry Wolf is in full agreement with the Democratic platform regarding sexuality. She wants nothing more and nothing less than the enactment of that platform. Can you name me a single policy relating to the family or to sexuality that Wolf proposes, which the Democratic party doesn't also fully endorse as part of its platform?

Again what do you mean by this? Are their things you think need to be included? What are they? Why does Sherry need to propose a bunch of policies anyway?

I would disagree with calling LGBT equality part of the Democrats platform or using the fact that they talk about it (while not doing anything) as a reason not to support these things or that they do not go far enough.

Lucretia

4th November 2010, 19:59

Again what do you mean by this? Are their things you think need to be included? What are they? Why does Sherry need to propose a bunch of policies anyway?

I would disagree with calling LGBT equality part of the Democrats platform or using the fact that they talk about it (while not doing anything) as a reason not to support these things or that they do not go far enough.

I am not saying that Sherry NEEDS to do anything. I just find it odd that with all the literature (apparently not consulted by Sherry) about the qualitatively different and alienated nature of sexuality under capitalism, that Sherry's understanding of sexual liberation under socialism basically amounts to the Democratic Party's platform.

She skips many important questions, presumably because she doesn't want to scare off middle-class college kids with controversy. No real discussion of things like prostitution, porno, S&M, public sex, or even the way that sexual identity categories have evolved in direct response to commodification (though she does cite and discuss D'Emilio's older article about capitalism and gay identity). Her vision of sexuality under socialism is highly unimaginative.

Lucretia

4th November 2010, 21:35

We never said that Obama was an opportunity, that was you.

Actually, what you said was that Obama's election was a watershed that represented a major opportunity for socialists. How does it represent an opportunity for socialists? According to you...

...the opportunity was that millions were interested in politics in some way and were interested in a campaign that referenced the labor movement and the civil rights movement.So people being interested in politics is an opportunity worth celebrating on the front cover of your magazine? Then why not include the Tea Party people? The point I am making by asking that last question is that "interest in politics" is just another one of those abstract terms you like bandying about as a supposed "opportunity" for revolutionary socialists. In the abstract, interest in politics is not necessarily an opportunity. It's interest in a particular kind of politics, or an interest that evinces a particular kind of awareness of the way the world functions. But the ISO is too interested in trying to siphon off the liberal energy of the Obamabots, it seems not to have taken the time to think about this question.

It was always about the population in a very contradictory way being more open to real left politics. I'm my experience this was true. Sure the capitalists wanted to use the Obama election as a way of maintaining control of left politics, but I feel like they unleashed something politically that is yet to be realized and that undermines their intentions.So you are willing to make a major strategic organizing and political decision on the basis of some amorphous feeling, not analyzed in any specific way, that you have about how Obama's election unleashed "something politically." I don't feel I need to apologize for saying that this is the ISO's strategic problem in a nutshell: it impulsively acts on a hunch in response to political developments it sees without thinking about how its actions help in building long-term socialist organizing and politics.

This is not to say that Obama is a pathway for us to have poltical power or any of that which you accuse the ISO of believing.You can explicitly disavow that this is what you believe, but your larger political program implies this view. You have already stated that the goal of the ISO is not to build a socialist left capable of seizing power on its own, but rather just to get those in power to heed to your demands. Am I misinterpreting something in that statement?

Again, Obama is not the opportunity.Right, it's his election that is supposedly the opportunity, correct?

The millions of people who may have supported the campaign whose political ideas are fluid and respond to the experience of Obama's betrayals are the opportunity.More confusion here. I thought Obama's election was the watershed and the opportunity, as the ISR article I mentioned proclaimed excitedly. Now it's the series of betrayals that have developed over the past two years the represent the opportunity. Which is it? By the way, the article never said "Obama's election represents an opportunity because, when he governs very similarly to Bush, people will begin to sense that the entire electoral system is controlled by big money and will be more open to a socialist critique." If that had been the main argument in the article, I would not be posting this message right now.

I was attempting to layout a political process by which some number of people radicalize from the election and the failure of the Democrats to actually do anything as well as their involvement in activism. This process is making it easier to convince people of Marxism and to break from the Dems. The election itself of course does not mean this, but two years have gone by. Have you not experienced this yourself in your organizing? I have and that is all the evidence I need.Neither you nor the ISO has laid out any process. All you've done is talk about some hunch that you have about how new voters excited about Obama represent some sort of ideological opportunity for revolutionary socialists. Now you're talking about how people in the 2008 election "radicalized" without explaining what you mean by radicalize. Are you saying that Obama voters were radicalized, and that voting for Obama was therefore a radical act? Are you saying that their aspirations were revolutionary? Which? Electing a black man? Wanting to restore habeas corpus and basic civil liberties? Wanting Obama to pass large infrastructure projects ala FDR? Which of these aspirations is radical or revolutionary?

First of all, capitalism still relies on racism.Capitalism as a system of production presently benefits from racism, but capitalism in no way depends upon it, as if capitalism would automatically collapse if people stopped being racist. The elimination of racism might put additional stress on capitalism because of the decreased divisions within the working class, but do not equate the struggle for civil rights with the struggle for socialist revolution. The former should be a part of the latter, but the latter is not reducible to the former.

The criminal injustice system was not uprooted, the death penalty still exists, racism against immigrants and Arab and Muslims is still strong and needed by capitalism. I already said the rest above.
Obviously.

I think you don't really understand the 08 elections then. I think what was so significant was how the population was affected by the campaign which was more than them just supporting a Dem again in their minds. In their minds they could actually expect things and push for them which is a step forward from despair and feeling powerless.Where the hell are you getting this information about what the people who voted for Obama thought? You're just making this up. At least show me some polling data.

Again it is a years long process of this opportunity to be realized,What opportunity? You still haven't laid out in a clear and coherent manner what this opportunity is. The magazine article cited earlier made it seem that people simply getting off their couches and knocking doors for Obama was an opportunity.

Well what I mean by leftwing is that the majority of the population support things like single payer healthcare, ending US military occupations, LGBT equality, etc. This is despite the Republicans winning.I know Republicans who support single payer, gay and lesbian equality, and withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. That you think these are radical leftwing views shows how skewed your understanding of what radical and left-wing is.

How exactly do we demand change then? From who? And how do we connect this with thousands and millions of other people in your opinion?The point is that you don't demand change. You MAKE CHANGE. The working-class has to be revolutionary agent to effect a socialist revolution, not the democratic party and not the republican party. Demanding changes is all well and good so long as it is understood those demands, and the process of class formation being undertaken in the process of making those demands, are a means to an end and not the end itself. The ISO seems to make the mistake that they are the end in themselves, and that the entire purpose of organizing the working class is just to make demands of the politicians in power until they accede to your demands.

Jimmie Higgins

4th November 2010, 22:00

I am not saying that Sherry NEEDS to do anything. I just find it odd that with all the literature (apparently not consulted by Sherry) about the qualitatively different and alienated nature of sexuality under capitalism, that Sherry's understanding of sexual liberation under socialism basically amounts to the Democratic Party's platform.

She skips many important questions, presumably because she doesn't want to scare off middle-class college kids with controversy. No real discussion of things like prostitution, porno, S&M, public sex, or even the way that sexual identity categories have evolved in direct response to commodification (though she does cite and discuss D'Emilio's older article about capitalism and gay identity). Her vision of sexuality under socialism is highly unimaginative.

I appreciate the constructive nature of your criticisms - it is refreshing.

That being said, I think you are totally wrong - shocking, right?

First of all, the ISO was always clear on Obama and the only thing we got wrong IMO is over-eagerness in thinking that the independent spontaneous political activity that arose around that time would lead to a more organized effort. I don't think we were alone in thinking that the Republic-Doors and Windows thing happening in January 2009, the Oscar Grant protests and "riots" that forced Oakland to lock up a murderer-cop, the anti-prop 8 protests after the prop passed, and the budget cuts movement were signs that people were finally taking some initiative. We saw Obama's candidacy as the result of people wanting change and we argued it is good to want these changes, but that Obama would never achieve these things. The line I used throughout the campaign was always: "Yes, I'd like to see that reform happen too, but the Democrats have worked against that and Obama has said X (more troops to Afghanistan - or whatever the issue is) so how do we actually go about achieving that..?"

We published a book on the Democrats and why they are not allies to unions or movements or working people and so this myth that the ISO supports the Democrats or is soft on Obama is just nonsense.

The point is that you don't demand change. You MAKE CHANGE. The working-class has to be revolutionary agent to effect a socialist revolution, not the democratic party and not the republican party. Demanding changes is all well and good so long as it is understood those demands, and the process of class formation being undertaken in the process of making those demands, are a means to an end and not the end itself. The ISO seems to make the mistake that they are the end in themselves, and that the entire purpose of organizing the working class is just to make demands of the politicians in power until they accede to your demands.So you do not support strikes or the anti-war movement? What are strikes when you reduce them in this way? They are a demand that imperialism not be so bad. Shouldn't we stop demanding the troops to come home and instead show up at anti-war rallies with "smash the state" signs? Or strikes - are they just demanding better conditions of our slavery? Aren't strikes just asking the bosses for things?

So how do you make change? Just repeat a slogan, stand on the sidelines with a sign that says "All power to the soviets" at a time when most people don't even think a limited strike can make gains?

Our goal is not to appeal to any politician, our goal is to get people to engage and organize themselves independently of the Democrats liberal groups or union leaders etc. So how do you concretely do that? You have to engage in the small struggles when overall struggle is low and so that is part of the point of fighting for reforms. As we see it, there will be no forward momentum for the left, let alone the radical left, until people engage in struggle. Where working class struggles have popped up, when possible, the ISO tries to relate to it, meet people where they are and raise the political demands to the next level.

So that's why I support people fighting in strikes or in the anti-war movement or for the limited gains of marriage equality... these are all stepping stones to wider possibilities for radicalism just as "asking our leaders" for integrated schools and lunch-counters led to black power movements and widespread radicalism.

Jimmie Higgins

4th November 2010, 22:08

Sherry's understanding of sexual liberation under socialism basically amounts to the Democratic Party's platform.WTF?

So the Democratic party's platform is to have a society where individual sexuality is not restricted or regulated? They fight for free abortion on demand? Hell, they fight for gay marriage? Not according to the pro-prop 8 mailer I got in Oakland in 2009 that quoted Obama saying he was against gay marriage - and not to mention the fact that the Obama admin has done everything it can to prevent any challenge to DOMA or DADT!

Look, there is a difference in short-term reform demands and the end goals. We can tell people all day how terrible Obama and the Democrats are and we won't get anywhere - if, on the other hand, radicals explain the nature of the Democrats while fighting alongside people for things like marriage equality, then when they are actually confronted with the dissonence between Obama's (proLGBT) rhetoric and his anti-LGBT policies they can become more receptive to our arguments.

It's the same with strikes... no amount of propaganda about the nature of capitalist exploitation is going to have the effect on class consciousness as going through a strike and seeing how class interests play out in real life.

Lucretia

4th November 2010, 22:18

I appreciate the constructive nature of your criticisms - it is refreshing.

That being said, I think you are totally wrong - shocking, right?

First of all, the ISO was always clear on Obama and the only thing we got wrong IMO is over-eagerness in thinking that the independent spontaneous political activity that arose around that time would lead to a more organized effort. I don't think we were alone in thinking that the Republic-Doors and Windows thing happening in January 2009, the Oscar Grant protests and "riots" that forced Oakland to lock up a murderer-cop, the anti-prop 8 protests after the prop passed, and the budget cuts movement were signs that people were finally taking some initiative.

It's indisputable that there were signs that some people in some places were taking initiative in ways that evinced a desire to make society more egalitarian across racial and class and sexual lines. Still, the question is: why is this a singular opportunity for socialists?

Because, according to you...

We saw Obama's candidacy as the result of people wanting change and we argued it is good to want these changes, but that Obama would never achieve these things.Kindly explain then why the ISR's lead article after the election called Obama's election a watershed. If the opportunity that the ISO detected was people taking initiative, then why does it matter whether Obama won or lost? If anything, Obama's victory quelled people's independent organizing because they thought they finally had a friend in the White House. The reality that many in the ISO seem to want to ignore is that the economic collapse was the ideological opportunity, and Obama was the establishment's way of sealing off any truly radical responses to the collapse. The ISR got the meaning of Obama's election completely wrong. It's good to see that you are at least partially willing to admit that.

So you do not support strikes or the anti-war movement? What are strikes when you reduce them in this way? They are a demand that imperialism not be so bad. Shouldn't we stop demanding the troops to come home and instead show up at anti-war rallies with "smash the state" signs? Or strikes - are they just demanding better conditions of our slavery? Aren't strikes just asking the bosses for things?Of course I support anti-war organizing and strikes. If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that my point was that for socialists these shouldn't be an end in themselves, but a means of building class solidarity for the ultimate objective of a socialist revolution. I was responding to the earlier comment which said that the over-arching goal was to get people in power to accede to workers' demands.

So how do you make change? I know you don't make it by getting goosebumps over Obama's elections, or misinterpreting his election as a spur to more activism instead of the disincentive it was.

Just repeat a slogan, stand on the sidelines with a sign that says "All power to the soviets" at a time when most people don't even think a limited strike can make gains?I am criticizing reformism, not reforms. Are you not able to discern the difference? Advocating for reforms is fine as long as it is clear the reforms are stops along the way, not an end in themselves.

Our goal is not to appeal to any politician, our goal is to get people to engage and organize themselves independently of the Democrats liberal groups or union leaders etc.And the obvious way to do that is to plaster on the front page of your magazine a clinched fist with the words of Obama's campaign slogan emblazoned above it, with a description of Obama's election as a "watershed event" on the first page? That doesn't sound like a particularly compelling way to get people to break from the Democrats. It looks like an attempt to ingratiate yourselves among Democrats.

Lucretia

4th November 2010, 22:25

WTF?

So the Democratic party's platform is to have a society where individual sexuality is not restricted or regulated? They fight for free abortion on demand?

Where in Sherry's book do you see her advocate for no regulations on an individual's sexuality? Of course the democrats do not advocate for that, but neither does Sherry - which was precisely my point.

Hell, they fight for gay marriage? Not according to the pro-prop 8 mailer I got in Oakland in 2009 that quoted Obama saying he was against gay marriage - and not to mention the fact that the Obama admin has done everything it can to prevent any challenge to DOMA or DADT!

You are trying so hard to twist things around here. Where did I say that the Democrats fight or don't fight for anything? I said that Sherry's book contains no proposals for sexuality or the family that are not completely consistent with the Democratic Party's platform. Her vision of a sexually liberated society, in other words, is one where the Democratic Party is forced to enact its platform proposals.

Are you going to prove me wrong by showing me one proposal relating to sexuality or the family that Sherry writes in her book, which isn't also a part of mainstream Democratic party politics?

Jimmie Higgins

5th November 2010, 01:55

It's indisputable that there were signs that some people in some places were taking initiative in ways that evinced a desire to make society more egalitarian across racial and class and sexual lines. Still, the question is: why is this a singular opportunity for socialists?What do you mean a singular opportunity? The ISO did not volunteer for the election or hide our analysis of the Democrats, in fact the election took up 0% of activism time - it was merely important for us to be able to explain people's excitement and also figure out a way to not diss that sincere political excitement (over the possibility of gaining some reforms), but encourage that excitement while giving an explanation about the role of the Democrats as a party in the US. Do you think printing a book on the Democrats was some clever cover to protect us from your criticisms... we printed it and gave it to new members just as a ploy? Sorry, we do not have the resources to waste printing things we do not think are valuable.

Ok, concretely, how do you suggest radicals relate to working class people who are, for the first time at least since 2001, talking about what they want in society but are still tied to the biggest boulder around the working class' collective neck, the democratic party?

Kindly explain then why the ISR's lead article after the election called Obama's election a watershed.Kindly explain to me how it was not a watershed in US history for a black man to be elected in a country built on black slavery and racism against black people? Was the election of 2008 the same as 2004 when people were rationalizing voting for someone they disagreed with in Kerry?

Is it a watershed for class consciousness or revolutionary politics? No, but it was a watershed for general politics and significant. You seem to confuse recognition of a big change in mainstream politics as an endorsement of it.

If the opportunity that the ISO detected was people taking initiative, then why does it matter whether Obama won or lost? If anything, Obama's victory quelled people's independent organizing because they thought they finally had a friend in the White House.

The reality that many in the ISO seem to want to ignore is that the economic collapse was the ideological opportunity, and Obama was the establishment's way of sealing off any truly radical responses to the collapse. The ISR got the meaning of Obama's election completely wrong. It's good to see that you are at least partially willing to admit that.Ok, that's reading history backwards or granting the power of clairvoyance to the ruling class since the economy didn't really hit the wall until after Obama was nominated. But other than that specific reason, yes you are right. The Democrats are capitalism's plan B and Obama's nomination and win and support for the ruling class was about finding someone who could sell US imperialism domestically and to the world; it was also due IMO to more overt racism and anti-racism with the Jenna 6 protests and of course Katrina. Who better to sell the US as "good imperialists" and "post-racial" than a half-white, half-black man from a relatively humble and identifiable background who has an African father.

The austerity that the US and European and Asian powers are pushing played no role in why the US ruling class favored Obama since he had already been in office when these rulers settled on an austerity strategy.

But returning to the main question, is it important for the working class that he was elected - as an individual no. It doesn't matter who is in office or what they ran on, but at the same time, you can't tell me that elections have no role in how working class people see the world. The ISO's line throughout was that it's good to want these thing and look how much enthusiasm people have to show their anti-racism, to support healthcare reform, to want an end to the war. But, we were also clear that Obama would not deliver and often was resolutely AGAINST the things people hoped he'd deliver.

Of course I support anti-war organizing and strikes. If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that my point was that for socialists these shouldn't be an end in themselves, but a means of building class solidarity for the ultimate objective of a socialist revolution. I was responding to the earlier comment which said that the over-arching goal was to get people in power to accede to workers' demands.So why is gay marriage not a reform towards that end? How is that different than demanding troops to withdraw or job security? The goal is not to get the people in power to aceed to demands, the goal is to try and build a movement that is independent and militant... this will create radicalization in society... from this radicalization, groups can begin to build a revolutionary party or parties. Wining marriage equality - specifically a rights movement that is making demands on a Democrat is going to help build a movement like that IMO because as people struggle, they can potentially learn that Obama will not do easy things like remove Don't ask Don't tell and he won't willingly support marriage equality.

The point is that you don't demand change. You MAKE CHANGE. So how do you make change? I know you don't make it by getting goosebumps over Obama's elections, or misinterpreting his election as a spur to more activism instead of the disincentive it was.As I have said before the ISO has not and never will support the Democrats or Obama. Please answer my question with something other than a dodge or I will be forced to conclude that your criticisms of the ISO are merely sectarian in nature and that you are looking for something you can criticize this group for rather than actually having a sincere political exchange. We do not support Obama, so drop that straw-man and the insinuation - you disagree with how we related to the election and people's misplaced hope in Obama, then what's your alternative? If reforms are just "asking for change" how do you "make change" what's your alternative?

I am criticizing reformism, not reforms. Are you not able to discern the difference? Advocating for reforms is fine as long as it is clear the reforms are stops along the way, not an end in themselves.Yeah and marriage quality is not our main goal or the end for LGBT liberation... IT'S THE START (hopefully)! How is that reformism? We did not invent this demand, this struggle came about without radicals... so how do radicals relate. I say, we join with the new grassroots groups that want to take to the streets or aren't willing to back down when a call comes in from a Democratic politician who is an "ally". Winning marriage equality will mean more confidence for people to fight for equal rights and the possibility of making a real movement in this country. Loosing marriage equality, but still fighting alongside other activists will mean that potentially our radical political understanding will explain how and why it failed. It's like being on a strike - you don't always demand nothing less than a full-out strike or a general strike or a sit-down strike, but you fight for the radical option that you can win people to and work forward from there. If you win it will probably be because more militant politics won out and you can keep moving - if you loose, then hopfully you have been able to argue against failing tactics of the union leadership in order to gain trust and regroup the next time with more people being wary of liberal pro-business strategies of union leasers.

So what do you do, or what do you think radicals should do?

And the obvious way to do that is to plaster on the front page of your magazine a clinched fist with the words of Obama's campaign slogan emblazoned above it, with a description of Obama's election as a "watershed event" on the first page? That doesn't sound like a particularly compelling way to get people to break from the Democrats. It looks like an attempt to ingratiate yourselves among Democrats.Well when you judge things based only by the cover, you can end up with all sorts of misconceptions.

Where in Sherry's book do you see her advocate for no regulations on an individual's sexuality? Of course the democrats do not advocate for that, but neither does Sherry - which was precisely my point.
What would sexual liberation mean? We can perhaps, agree on what must disappear - institutional and legal discrimination against LGBT people, fixed gender roles and sexual identities, legal constraints on consensual sex, and social repression of sexual experimentation...

Also when she talks about the Russian Revolution and all the early gains from that revolution such as getting rid of criminal regulations on divorce and homosexuality.

I seriously doubt you read this book if you think that everything she writes could be argued by a Democrat. Show me the politician who openly stands on a platform of "getting rid of sexual identities"! The entire book is about how liberation and radical socialist politics are linked and why radical socialist politics are necessary for a liberation movement.

If you mean why does she mostly talk about DOMA and DADT? Simply because these are the main issues that whatever movement there is right now is dealing with. Why would she spend chapters talking about the political ins and outs of demands that are not being made and may not be made?

So is she talking about reformism or reforms as a road to further radicalization?

"Same-sex marriage is a civil right that must be unapologetically defended by socialists and other leftists - not only for its own sake as a material and social benifit under capitalism, especially to working class and poor LGBT people, but because the reform is not a barrier to future struggles - it can be a gateway to them instead" - pg 263

Lucretia

5th November 2010, 05:14

What do you mean a singular opportunity? The ISO did not volunteer for the election or hide our analysis of the Democrats, in fact the election took up 0% of activism time - it was merely important for us to be able to explain people's excitement and also figure out a way to not diss that sincere political excitement (over the possibility of gaining some reforms), but encourage that excitement while giving an explanation about the role of the Democrats as a party in the US. Do you think printing a book on the Democrats was some clever cover to protect us from your criticisms... we printed it and gave it to new members just as a ploy? Sorry, we do not have the resources to waste printing things we do not think are valuable.

Speaking of dodging questions and offering up non-sequitors, when did I ever say or imply that the ISO "volunteered for the election" or should have "hidden its analysis"? What I have said from the beginning of this thread was clear: the ISO misread what Obama's election represented. It thought his election was a watershed moment not just because it was the election of a "black" man in a racist country, but because it supposedly represented a major ideological opening for socialists to organize the masses. This was the whole point of the article I mentioned. You know, the cover story for the first issue of ISR to come out after Obama's election, the issue with "Yes, We Can!" scrawled at the top.

Ok, concretely, how do you suggest radicals relate to working class people who are, for the first time at least since 2001, talking about what they want in society but are still tied to the biggest boulder around the working class' collective neck, the democratic party?Quit changing the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is not and has never been "Lucretia's ideal solutions to the problems of Socialist organizing." The topic is a series of articles written by the ISO regarding the 2010 mid-term elections, the advertisement of which articles I suggested I would take with a grain of salt because of the ISO's track record in analyzing American electoral politics. I was asked why I took the ISO's analyses with a grain of salt and explained why. What does any of this have to do with how I "suggest radicals relate to working class people"? Perhaps if you can explain that to me, I might consider responding. In the meantime, your rejoinder is just as off base as somebody who, after hearing a criticism of his favorite musician says, "How well can YOU play the guitar?!"

Kindly explain to me how it was not a watershed in US history for a black man to be elected in a country built on black slavery and racism against black people? Was the election of 2008 the same as 2004 when people were rationalizing voting for someone they disagreed with in Kerry?I have already explained my interpretation of Obama's election, including what I thought was its historical significance, multiple times in this very thread. I am not going to repeat myself over and over again because you want to avoid answering questions I pose and instead pose some of your own.

Is it a watershed for class consciousness or revolutionary politics? No,Then why in the world was the ISO, a revolutionary socialist organization, celebrating the election on its front pages?

but it was a watershed for general politics and significant.Yes, significant for the reasons I laid out above. Significant because it demonstrates that black people are capable of wielding executive power on behalf of capital, and are finally beginning to be asked to do so. Forgive me for not having goosebumps.

You seem to confuse recognition of a big change in mainstream politics as an endorsement of it.Obama's election was not a big change in mainstream politics. Obama's election did not lead millions of people not to be racists anymore. It was a sign that the racism of enough white people had already declined to the point where a black person could win the presidency in a majority-white country. If anything, Obama's election confirmed what had already happened. In and of itself it was a symbol of that gradual historical shift, not some landmark event worthy of plastering on the front page of your revolutionary socialist magazine.

Ok, that's reading history backwards or granting the power of clairvoyance to the ruling class since the economy didn't really hit the wall until after Obama was nominated.Since you're probably in college, I am not surprised you don't know this. But the economy began to take a dump well before September of 2008, and even well before Obama sealed up the nomination. But that's beside the point. When I say that Obama was a way for the establishment to seal off the possibility of truly radical change, I do not think I mean the same thing you do. I am not suggesting that a bunch of old white men wearing name tags designating them as ruling class met in a smoke-filled room and decided that Obama was going to be their man. Rather, Obama's nomination and subsequent election was a sign that people were confusing one kind of change--the change of having the first black man--with other kinds of change--such as the rolling back of Bush's civil liberties violations, the enactment of Keynesian economic policies that would benefit working people more than neoliberalism. This was not the result of some sort of bizarre conspiracy hatched by the ruling class. Instead, it was a mistaken view conditioned by the capitalist mode of production as it has developed in the United States over the course of two hundred years.

The ISO's line throughout was that it's good to want these thing and look how much enthusiasm people have to show their anti-racism, to support healthcare reform, to want an end to the war. But, we were also clear that Obama would not deliver and often was resolutely AGAINST the things people hoped he'd deliver.Showing anti-racism is a good thing. People showing anti-racism by election a pro-imperialist, pro-capital, anti-civil-liberties charlatan is not a good thing, and certainly not something to celebrate on the front cover of a revolutionary socialist magazine. Again, we have the problem of abstracting one quality and analyzing in isolation from the rest of the concrete political situation. That leads to very, very bad political strategy.

Please answer my question with something other than a dodge or I will be forced to conclude that your criticisms of the ISO are merely sectarian in nature and that you are looking for something you can criticize this group for rather than actually having a sincere political exchange.I love how you think the communication process works. You jump into a conversation in which I and another person were discussing the ISO's approach to Obama, then ask a question about my views on how to have a socialist revolution (which was NOT what the conversation was about), then pout that if I don't answer your question about this unrelated issue, I must be a "sectarian" who isn't interested in a sincere exchange. I honestly hope you're joking.

Yeah and marriage quality is not our main goal or the end for LGBT liberation... IT'S THE START (hopefully)!What makes the ISO's position on sexual liberation reformism is that in Sherry Wolf's book about sexual liberation, she does not express support for anything, or envision anything, that hasn't already been supported by the Democratic party's platform or envisioned by even moderate democrats. I hate to tell you this, but that's reformism. It brings up reforms not as a path to sexual liberation. It views those reforms as sexual liberation! If you want to say I am wrong, show me ONE issue relating to marriage and the family where Sherry deviated from the Democratic Party. Just one, and I will recant. The way you make it sound, Sherry talks briefly about same-sex marriage before moving on to her discussion about what a sexually liberated society looks like. In fact, same-sex marriage and the repeal of DADT anchor her vision for sexual liberation and consume a sizable chunk of the book. Wolf NEVER considers the possibility that sexual liberation will entail the end of the myth that people have stable, discrete sexual orientations that channel all their sexual energy to one sex or the other. She never considers the possibility that sexual categories will disappear or at least transform to such a degree that the use of such clunky phrases as "LGBT" will be outmoded. It makes me want to mail Sherry Wolf a copy of Lisa Diamond's book Sexual Fluidity.

Jimmie Higgins

5th November 2010, 07:08

I love how you think the communication process works. You jump into a conversation in which I and another person were discussing the ISO's approach to Obama, then ask a question about my views on how to have a socialist revolution (which was NOT what the conversation was about), then pout that if I don't answer your question about this unrelated issue, I must be a "sectarian" who isn't interested in a sincere exchange. I honestly hope you're joking.PM people if you want to have a private conversation on an public forum - it's common sense.

I am not accusing you of anything, but if you want to criticize another groups methods, I wanted clarification of what you saw as the alternative way to go about it. Isn't that how a debate works - point counter-point? That's what a sincere debate and criticism looks like. However, when someone criticizes other groups, makes accusations that are based on opinion, repeats them without proof even though I provided a sincere counter-example to your claim, then I can only conclude that you are more interested in criticizing another group because you simply don't like that group, rather than criticizing and presenting an alternative or some kind of debate. I was not trying to be hostile, I was just trying to have out the debate... but if a debate only has one side, it is not a debate, it is just an attack/defense of the ISO and I would rather discuss politics and different approaches than have to transcribe book passages because you keep making the same claims over and over without real proof.

Since you're probably in college, I am not surprised you don't know this. But the economy began to take a dump well before September of 2008, and even well before Obama sealed up the nomination. But that's beside the point.You know what, I'm 33 and work in the service industry. I have not insulted you or attacked you personally, I expect the same respect.

I provided counter-arguments to as many of your points as I could in a sincere way - when you said not one argument in "Sexuality and Socialism" is something that a Democratic politician wouldn't support, I went to the trouble of grabbing my copy of the book and transcribing one of many passages as a counter-argument.

Yet every time I offer a counter-point or contrary evidence, you just repeat the same opinions without evidence... just your word.

And by the way, the ruling class did not know in the Spring of 2008 that they would need someone to sell austerity to the working class above and beyond the regular cutbacks and class war that we've been dealing with in general for the last generation. Again I agree in general that Obama was seen by the ruling class as a well to sell their policies, but they did not have a plot in place about what they were going to do when the economy crashed. Yes many people were aware of problems in the economy coming to ahead - the housing collapse had already begun, but it's crazy to say that the RC had a plan in place involving Obama for how they were going to handle the wider crash later. If they were worried about someone who could sell cut-backs, they would have gone with John Edwards or someone - Obama was not a big labor candidate and has been seen throughout as "elitist" and so he's not the best choice image-wise for the RC in selling austerity. IMO selling the war and post-racial America were much more a part of the equation.

What makes the ISO's position on sexual liberation reformism is that in Sherry Wolf's book about sexual liberation, she does not express support for anything, or envision anything, that hasn't already been supported by the Democratic party's platform or envisioned by even moderate democrats. I hate to tell you this, but that's reformism. It brings up reforms not as a path to sexual liberation. It views those reforms as sexual liberation! You didn't even read the fucking quotes I transcribed from the book!

"Same-sex marriage is a civil right that must be unapologetically defended by socialists and other leftists - not only for its own sake as a material and social benifit under capitalism, especially to working class and poor LGBT people, but because the reform is not a barrier to future struggles - it can be a gateway to them instead" - pg 263

If you want to say I am wrong, show me ONE issue relating to marriage and the family where Sherry deviated from the Democratic Party. Just one, and I will recant.Ok... this quote again:

Originally Posted by Sexuality and Socialism
What would sexual liberation mean? We can perhaps, agree on what must disappear - institutional and legal discrimination against LGBT people, fixed gender roles and sexual identities, legal constraints on consensual sex, and social repression of sexual experimentation...
The way you make it sound, Sherry talks briefly about same-sex marriage before moving on to her discussion about what a sexually liberated society looks like.No most of the book is about the history and development of conceptions of sexuality and then the liberation movement in the 1960/70s, more contemporary debates in the LGBT movement and how those politics relate to socialist politics, and contemporary issues. But to claim that she sees refoms as the end goal or doesn't also hold a vision of a much more radical reconstruction of the way sexuality exists in our lives is demonstratively false... I keep quoting and you keep spreading the same line.

In fact, same-sex marriage and the repeal of DADT anchor her vision for sexual liberation and consume a sizable chunk of the book. Because this is an introductory book aimed at activists new to socialism - DADT and DOMA are the main issues among LGBT activists. To claim that this is her vision of liberation is a joke!

Wolf NEVER considers the possibility that sexual liberation will entail the end of the myth that people have stable, discrete sexual orientations that channel all their sexual energy to one sex or the other. She never considers the possibility that sexual categories will disappear or at least transform to such a degree that the use of such clunky phrases as "LGBT" will be outmoded.NEVER?

Originally Posted by Sexuality and Socialism
What would sexual liberation mean? We can perhaps, agree on what must disappear - institutional and legal discrimination against LGBT people, fixed gender roles and sexual identities, legal constraints on consensual sex, and social repression of sexual experimentation...

R_P_A_S

5th November 2010, 07:14

thanks for posting!

Lucretia

5th November 2010, 07:59

PM people if you want to have a private conversation on an public forum - it's common sense.

You're confusing two separate issues. I am not saying you can't participate in the discussion that I and Gumby were having. I am saying that's it's absurd to interject yourself into the conversation, ask a question about an issue separate from the one we're discussing, then insist that if I don't answer it then I am not communicating in good faith. If you don't see what's wrong with that on your own, there's little I can do to help.

I was not trying to be hostile, I was just trying to have out the debate... but if a debate only has one side, it is not a debate, it is just an attack/defense of the ISO and I would rather discuss politics and different approaches than have to transcribe book passages because you keep making the same claims over and over without real proof.I am perfectly willing to have a discussion about a disagreement, what you refer to as a debate. In fact I was having one with Gumby. It was about whether the ISO had a sound approach to interpreting Obama's election. Don't try to lecture me about my unwillingness to have a debate, simply because I am not willing to let you derail the debate by trying to make it about whether I have all the right answers about how to launch a socialist revolution. Get real.

You know what, I'm 33 and work in the service industry. I have not insulted you or attacked you personally, I expect the same respect.Since when was it a disrespectful insult to say that another person is probably in college? I made that assumption on the basis that most of the ISO consists of college students (due to the fact that that's where the ISO concentrates its recruiting).

And by the way, the ruling class did not know in the Spring of 2008 that they would need someone to sell austerity to the working class above and beyond the regular cutbacks and class war that we've been dealing with in general for the last generation. Again I agree in general that Obama was seen by the ruling class as a well to sell their policies, but they did not have a plot in place about what they were going to do when the economy crashed. Yes many people were aware of problems in the economy coming to ahead - the housing collapse had already begun, but it's crazy to say that the RC had a plan in place involving Obama for how they were going to handle the wider crash later. If they were worried about someone who could sell cut-backs, they would have gone with John Edwards or someone - Obama was not a big labor candidate and has been seen throughout as "elitist" and so he's not the best choice image-wise for the RC in selling austerity. IMO selling the war and post-racial America were much more a part of the equation.Again, I think you're viewing the Obama phenomenon as a plot hatched by specific people. His popularity was an ideological outgrowth of the decline of a formerly rigid racialized economic system, not the result of a few people, ruling class or otherwise, colluding in a smoke-filled room.

No most of the book is about the history and development of conceptions of sexuality and then the liberation movement in the 1960/70s, more contemporary debates in the LGBT movement and how those politics relate to socialist politics, and contemporary issues.I never said that her discussion of marriage and DADT constituted "most" of the book. I said it represented a sizable portion--and you seem to acknowledge that by mentioning that "most of the book" includes "contemporary debates in the LGBT movement," namely marriage and DADT.

As for the quote you keep claiming is so amazing, it is contradictory. It claims that there should be no fixed sexual identities at the same time it claims that a liberated society won't discriminate against people with certain fixed and identifiable (LGBT) identities. So while that line seems encouraging, I am not sure what Wolf means when she says a sexually liberated society has no "fixed" sexual identities. Maybe this is because she found the room to write one ambiguous line about it, while devoting pages and pages to how important it is to building a revolutionary socialist movement to allow gays to serve in the military and to marry each other. :confused:

Amphictyonis

5th November 2010, 08:16

the ISO misread what Obama's election represented. It thought his election was a watershed moment not just because it was the election of a "black" man in a racist country, but because it supposedly represented a major ideological opening for socialists to organize the masses. This was the whole point of the article I mentioned. You know, the cover story for the first issue of ISR to come out after Obama's election, the issue with "Yes, We Can!" scrawled at the top.

why in the world was the ISO, a revolutionary socialist organization, celebrating the election on its front pages?

Yes, significant for the reasons I laid out above. Significant because it demonstrates that black people are capable of wielding executive power on behalf of capital, and are finally beginning to be asked to do so. Forgive me for not having goosebumps.

Obama's election was not a big change in mainstream politics. Obama's election did not lead millions of people not to be racists anymore. It was a sign that the racism of enough white people had already declined to the point where a black person could win the presidency in a majority-white country. If anything, Obama's election confirmed what had already happened. In and of itself it was a symbol of that gradual historical shift, not some landmark event worthy of plastering on the front page of your revolutionary socialist magazine.

Showing anti-racism is a good thing. People showing anti-racism by election a pro-imperialist, pro-capital, anti-civil-liberties charlatan is not a good thing, and certainly not something to celebrate on the front cover of a revolutionary socialist magazine. Again, we have the problem of abstracting one quality and analyzing in isolation from the rest of the concrete political situation. That leads to very, very bad political strategy.

I agree with the above. I was sickened by the amount of sycophantic praise being leveled during the campaign by so called revolutionaries. If it had been Alan Keyes I'm afraid he wouldn't have been celebrated by any socialist/Anarchist/Marxist publication or organization.

The real issue here is the incestuous relationship between socialists and liberals. One which must end if we're to make gains in the future. I call it Micheal Moore syndrome unlike you though I think Obama has been groomed for years to gain high office and after 8 years of Bush a formidable left was forming in teh US- a left that, we can both agree on, is now silent. A conspiracy need not exist when the entire system is set up to give teh same results no matter what but there may be some 'planning' involved here and there.

We simply don't have a democracy in the USA. It's a capitalist plutocracy and Obama is just the next salesman of the lie. An effective one at that. The founding fathers set up a system, in their own words, to keep the opulent in power, to maintain privilege and concentrated wealth. Our system is no conspiracy, it's simply our system.

Jimmie Higgins

5th November 2010, 15:18

You're confusing two separate issues. I am not saying you can't participate in the discussion that I and Gumby were having. I am saying that's it's absurd to interject yourself into the conversation, ask a question about an issue separate from the one we're discussing, then insist that if I don't answer it then I am not communicating in good faith. If you don't see what's wrong with that on your own, there's little I can do to help.
It's not separate: If you do not like X approach, what is the alternative in your view? If we were trying to decide what to eat for dinner and I suggested chicken and your response was "chicken isn't good" would I be off the mark in asking what your suggestion would be for an alternative?

How exactly do we demand change then? From who? And how do we connect this with thousands and millions of other people in your opinion? The point is that you don't demand change. You MAKE CHANGE. The working-class has to be revolutionary agent to effect a socialist revolution, not the democratic party and not the republican party. Demanding changes is all well and good so long as it is understood those demands, and the process of class formation being undertaken in the process of making those demands, are a means to an end and not the end itself. The ISO seems to make the mistake that they are the end in themselves, and that the entire purpose of organizing the working class is just to make demands of the politicians in power until they accede to your demands.
Original Gumby asked you the same question first, you answered, but I asked you to clarify - in no way was I derailing. The process of reforms as a means to an end is EXACTLY what we try to do in the ISO. I provided evidence from "Sexuality and Socialism" of the argument about reforms leading to increased struggle and increased radicalization, but you have continued to maintain that the ISO sees reforms as ends in of themselves... so far it is only your opinion since you can not provide evidence of this claim. So if we are not doing what you said above in our work trying to support reforms that will potentially lead to increased struggle and an advance in class consciousness, what could we do differently concretely. Because in my experience that is what we are trying to do and have never seen or thought that a reform we were working in a coalition for was the end goal.

Since when was it a disrespectful insult to say that another person is probably in college? I made that assumption on the basis that most of the ISO consists of college students (due to the fact that that's where the ISO concentrates its recruiting).That post seemed completely condescending and dismissive to me: "Hey kid, you might know this when you're older..." If you didn't mean it that way, fine I accept that.

So should I assume you are a white male in high school since most RevLefters probably fit that description?

Again, I think you're viewing the Obama phenomenon as a plot hatched by specific people. His popularity was an ideological outgrowth of the decline of a formerly rigid racialized economic system, not the result of a few people, ruling class or otherwise, colluding in a smoke-filled room.

I never said that her discussion of marriage and DADT constituted "most" of the book. I said it represented a sizable portion--and you seem to acknowledge that by mentioning that "most of the book" includes "contemporary debates in the LGBT movement," namely marriage and DADT.You made it sound as though these things are the end goal of the LGBT movement in the ISO's opinion - which is false as I have demonstrated - and I do not deny that there is a chapter on these contemporary issues... but those issues are not the main point of the book as you made it seem.

As for the quote you keep claiming is so amazing, it is contradictory.Where did I claim it is amazing... man, you have more straw-men than a Spart! I keep quoting that because you said:

If you want to say I am wrong, show me ONE issue relating to marriage and the family where Sherry deviated from the Democratic Party. Just one, and I will recant.

(...more once I get some free-time.)

Lucretia

5th November 2010, 16:31

It's not separate: If you do not like X approach, what is the alternative in your view? If we were trying to decide what to eat for dinner and I suggested chicken and your response was "chicken isn't good" would I be off the mark in asking what your suggestion would be for an alternative?

Actually, it is separate, and it's clear that it's an attempt to derail the discussion and change the subject. You're making it seem like my main argument was "My approach to socialist revolution is superior to that of the ISO." That was not my argument. My argument was that the ISO's interpretation of the Obama election has led me to doubt their credibility on subsequent analyses of electoral politics. What my plans are for socialist revolution have absolutely no bearing on whether my doubts about the ISO's credibility are legitimate. None. It would be one thing if you accepted my argument, then asked as a follow-up: "Well, I guess we agree that you're right, but out of curiosity what plans do you have?" But it's another thing entirely to interject into the discussion demands that I answer your unrelated questions.

The process of reforms as a means to an end is EXACTLY what we try to do in the ISO. I provided evidence from "Sexuality and Socialism" of the argument about reforms leading to increased struggle and increased radicalizationActually what you quoted amounted to a single throw-away clause at the very end of the book making an ambiguous reference to "the end of sexual identity categories" at the same time that it claims that people with specific sexual identity categories will not be discriminated against in a socialist society. So which is it? Does liberation entail the end of sexual identity categories, or merely the end of discrimination based on those categories? Which one is reform, and which one is revolution? It's not clear in Sherry's account because as I said, she devotes only a single clause to the idea that liberation has something even remotely to do with the fluidity of sexual desire. Yet you keep repeating the quote over and over again like it conclusively refutes what I said about Sherry's reformism and her book not differing one iota in its political program from the Democratic party's platform. It doesn't. I stand by my claim that Wolf's politics is entirely reformist, even if she and you think they are radical or revolutionary.

And this is beside the much larger argument which we could have about whether entrenching marriage is actually a stop on the way to sexual liberation, which I think actually entails the abolition of public incentives that privilege some forms of consensual sexuality over others.

That post seemed completely condescending and dismissive to me: "Hey kid, you might know this when you're older..." If you didn't mean it that way, fine I accept that.That might be how you interpreted what I said, but it was not what I said. At not point did I intend to be condescending or be insulting.

So should I assume you are a white male in high school since most RevLefters probably fit that description?You can if you want to, though you would be wrong. I certainly would not interpret it as a sign of disrespect.

You made it sound as though these things are the end goal of the LGBT movement in the ISO's opinion - which is false as I have demonstrated - and I do not deny that there is a chapter on these contemporary issues... but those issues are not the main point of the book as you made it seem.So wait. I am arguing that the main point of Sherry's book is to persuade liberal democrats that socialists will actually be more effective at achieving the reformist goals they have (marriage and repeal of DADT), and you think you've disproven that's the main point of her book by quoting a single sentence from her conclusion? Really? Again, you're not joking?

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th November 2010, 16:46

The ISO proved their revolutionary credentials when they held an Obama victory party in Harlem after he was elected. :thumbup1:

Jimmie Higgins

5th November 2010, 17:08

The ISO proved their revolutionary credentials when they held an Obama victory party in Harlem after he was elected. :thumbup1:Why don't you get out your big chalkboard and connect the dots for us... how is the ISO sectetly backing Obama and how is George Soros backing the ISO:lol:. You can't prove that the ISO supports Obama simply because we don't - I swear some of you guys are as bone-headed as Glenn Beck and birthers when it comes to this shit.

I think there is pleanty of room to debate, how do we, as radicals, approach a situation like the 2008 election. I know people don't agree with how the ISO went about it, but constantly bringing up these myths that we support Obama or the Democrats is totally disengenuious.

I really hate how some marxists will call all anarchists "liberals", some anarchists think all marxists and lenininsts are in favor of a hierarchical autocracy or something, and so on. There are real political disagreements and they should be discussed, but enough with the bullshit straw-men, it's lazy, and it doesn't help clarify anything political.

Lucretia

5th November 2010, 17:27

Why don't you get out your big chalkboard and connect the dots for us... how is the ISO sectetly backing Obama and how is George Soros backing the ISO:lol:. You can't prove that the ISO supports Obama simply because we don't - I swear some of you guys are as bone-headed as Glenn Beck and birthers when it comes to this shit.

I think there is pleanty of room to debate, how do we, as radicals, approach a situation like the 2008 election. I know people don't agree with how the ISO went about it, but constantly bringing up these myths that we support Obama or the Democrats is totally disengenuious.

I really hate how some marxists will call all anarchists "liberals", some anarchists think all marxists and lenininsts are in favor of a hierarchical autocracy or something, and so on. There are real political disagreements and they should be discussed, but enough with the bullshit straw-men, it's lazy, and it doesn't help clarify anything political.

Did the ISO hold a victory party in Harlem after Obama's election? If so, that seems to be pretty damning evidence of support. You seem to think that such things, if they did indeed transpire (and I am not saying either that they did or that they didn't), can be disqualified from consideration by just saying that the ISO doesn't support Obama. A strange form of discursive determinism this is. "Yeah, we held the party, but that doesn't count. What matters in determining whether we support Obama is whether we gave him money in the campaign!" What people consider to be support is subject to debate. And yes, I would consider holding a victory party for him to be support.

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th November 2010, 18:42

The bourgeoisie’s lie of the “death of communism” has a reflection in the myth of the “end of racism”—a myth that Obama’s campaign propped up—and in the burial of the struggle for racial integration as a “failed experiment.” It’s no surprise, then, that the same fake-socialist reformists in the International Socialist Organization (ISO) who criminally cheered the fall of the Soviet Union also echoed the bourgeois liberals’ pro-Obama chants of “Yes We Can!” with touching faith in a “post-racial” capitalist democracy. The ISO and other reformists bury the simple fact that the Democrats are the other party of racist U.S. imperialism and class enemies of the proletariat. The ISO even celebrated with a party in Harlem and called the victory a “transformative event.”

The ISO web site was filled with gushing coverage of Obama’s victory. A column on “Election Day in Harlem” by Brian Jones reported on an election party, “I felt like a tiny ship, tossed back and forth on a frothy sea of human emotion and pride in the historic election of the first African American president of the U.S. Raw joy was dominant, but there was also relief, pride, shock and wonder.” He concluded: “Huge numbers of people are energized by the fact that, yes, we can elect a Black president. What we get from this president depends mostly on what happens to this energy, and less on the president himself.” Well, actually, no. A Socialist Worker (7 November 2008) editorial on “The New Shape of American Politics” takes the same tack, asking:
“What economic policies will Obama pursue as the worst financial crisis since the 1930s drives the world deep into recession? Will the man who made his mark as an opponent of the Iraq war make good on his promise to pull out U.S. troops? Will there be the kind of fundamental change that his supporters so clearly want?...
“Will Obama call a halt to this colossal rip-off and fashion an economic program that puts the interests of working people in its center? ... Will there be an economic stimulus program that creates secure, long-term jobs?”
Will the ISO say that Obama is a capitalist politician who must act to defend the ruling class of U.S. imperialism? Instead, SW editorializes:
“Given the multiple crises that beset the U.S., change is coming – but what kind, and in whose interest, depends on whether and how working people get organized to fight for it.”
Not a hint of the Marxist analysis of the state as the instrument of capitalist rule. For the ISO, it’s all about pressure.

:thumbup:

The Grey Blur

5th November 2010, 19:47

jesus this is pathetic...i mean once you bring the sparts into it we know the level of the sort of people attacking the ISO. i'm not an ISO member or of their sister parties in europe but their general analysis of obama and the democrats is spot on. obama's election did raise hopes, especially amongst the worst off in american society, if they were to just ignore that then revolutionaries will get nowhere. for sure, criticise if you have a problem but so far the 'criticism' in this thread has been sectarian drivel.

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th November 2010, 21:22

Jimmie Higgins

5th November 2010, 23:00

Yeah according to a Spart who harrassed me last week, the ISO supports cops - this was at a protest of the cop that killed Oscar Grant by the way. This is the kind of unporductive approach to talking about real political debates that really pisses me off. When people give the same treartment on this website to other groups I generally try and stay out of it because it's useless politically, but when people spread misinformation about the group I have spent 10 years trying to build, I can't really "stay above" the fray.

I'm sorry Lucreta and NHIA, but I have provided quotes, OG provided links to articles, and I have explained how I saw the ISO's position from the inside. Lucreta, you even dared me to show you that Ms. Wolf supports things beyond ending DADT or DOMA or has a vision of sexuality and gender beyond the confines of what exists now - well I got out my copy of the book and easily found a few quotes which I transcribed for you.. I'm still waiting for you to "recant" as you promised you would once I showed you "one pice of evidence". Ignoring evidence you asked me to show you makes me think that this is less of a political disagreement and more like either wilful ignorence or an axe to grind at this point. It is almost like debating some conservative who thinks that Obama is a socilaist... you can provide all the evidence and yet they still hold onto this gut misconception.

But one more time, I will state our position as I understood it: in the context of essentially writing-off Kerry supporters and Gore and Clinton supporters as people who could potentially become radicalized or even activists, for 16 years, for the first time we had to deal with a candidate who actually did speak to people's hopes. So we were mearly trying to navigate that... figre out how to support people having poltical optomism for the first time in a while but trying to convince them about the role of Democrats in actually opposing the things that people wanted and projected onto Obama. Someone who voted Kerry, for example, was just voting against Bush and for Kerry out of cynacism and knew that he was going to extend the war. Obama supporters, by contrast, were much differnet in many cases... in all of our movement work there were many progressives who had misplaced hopes in Obama, but were also moving in a much more progressive direction. So how do you deal with that? We want people to break from the Democrats as sort of one of the first major steps (not the only possible one, but in the US, breaking with the Dems says a lot about an induviduals politics) towards class-consiousness. We knew that in the context of the 08 election that no ammount of propagandizing would break 99% of progressive Obama supporters from their misplaced hopes simply because the sum of all radical voices is just pissing in the wind of pro-Obama hysteria. So, instead of writing everyone off, or waiting for the hysteria to go down, we decided to take an approach that said: "yes we think the reasons you want to vote for Obama are good (opposition to the war, years of neo-liberal policies, for universal healtcare, etc) but Obama will not deliver. If someone counter-posed electng Obama with building a movement, then it was clear that they probably were not all that political and not moving left. If someone was engaged and energized about a new political mood in the country and were getting involved with activism but still had illusions in Obama, we thought these are people who can be radicalized and can be won away from the Democrats. And we would (and did, in fact) have a better chance of breaking people from the Democrats if we could provide an explaination of the Dems and why they ultimately do not want change and will most likely (and they did) disappoint.

After essentially a generation of political demoralization, people had high hopes in things all radicals want - of course Obama's role and the role of the Democrats is to channel that sentiment, but I think we were correct that Obama could not contol the optomism people projected onto his campagin. The Prop 8 stuff is clear evidence of this... people did not go to sleep, they began to demand more and there were several amazing protests organized by people through facebook. The Republic Windows and Doors strike happened even though many workers appealed to Obama directly and obviously had illusions in hime. What had more of an impact on people becoming inactive was the tea-party - not in of itself, but in projecting a sense to workers that the US is inherently conservative. The Republicans aren't alone in achieving this - they could not have done it without the Democrats - and both parties worked together to push people's hopes and expectations back down after the election.

So again it's not a question of supporting or not suppporting Obama or reforms for their own sake - it's a question of how do you deal with hopes that should be encouraged that are misplaced when your political view is a minority. If you don't think our approach was correct, that is one thing, but saying that we were essentially lieing about our intentions crosses a line and if you are going to call fellow radical liars, be prepared to back it up with more than just circumstantial annecdotes and your own opinions.

As for people going to election parties, in my branch we had a "watch the retuns with the ISO" thing at someone's house - we do that at most elections because it would be better for our non-socialist allies to watch it with radicals rather than with their sole analysis of the election coming from the network talking heads and newspaper editorials. I did not go to any Obama celebration, but I lived in a giant one. People were literally dancing in the steets in my East Oakland neighborhood and the only thing comperable in mood was when the immigrant rights marches came through my neighborhood. Again, the hopes were misplaced, but millions of workers and people of color and young people having hopes for a better world is better than just thinking that the US population is totally conservative. Why wouldn't ANY radical want to be with people like that going through these political lessons first-hand (both the good lessons - that a lot of people in the US want heltchare and an end to racism and the negative lessons - don't place your hopes in a Democrat) to provide a real radical perspective and class anyalysis of all this?

You make is sound like the ISO organized celebrations - we did not. In my branch we had a "watching the returns" meeting in order to bring allies around us, but we do that with almost all elections because we'd rather our allies get analysis from us than the pundits and political wanks on network TV.

So, again, if people think this was the wrong approach for radicals, that's a good debate to have and can be really interesting to have out IMO. Calling fellow radicals "liberals" or saying that we are lieing in our stated goals or purpose is not good political discussion unless the point is to sling mud. I disagree with marxist-leninists or maoists on this site, but I don't think they are just lieing about wanting socialism - I just think their road is a dead end if working class self-emancipation is the goal and they have a dubious definition of what constitutes a "worker's state".