Rebecca Solnit on the pathology of the Radical Left

[NGNM85]

'Dear Allies,
Forgive me if I briefly take my eyes off the prize to brush away some flies, but the buzzing has gone on for some time. I have a grand goal, and that is to counter the Republican right with its deep desire to annihilate everything I love and to move toward far more radical goals than the Democrats ever truly support. In the course of pursuing that, however, I’ve come up against the habits of my presumed allies again and again.
O rancid sector of the far left, please stop your grousing! Compared to you, Eeyore sounds like a Teletubby. If I gave you a pony, you would not only be furious that not everyone has a pony, but you would pick on the pony for not being radical enough until it wept big, sad, hot pony tears. Because what we’re talking about here is not an analysis, a strategy, or a cosmology, but an attitude, and one that is poisoning us. Not just me, but you, us, and our possibilities.
...This kind of response often has an air of punishing or condemning those who are less radical, and it is exactly the opposite of movement- or alliance-building. Those who don’t simply exit the premises will be that much more cautious about opening their mouths. Except to *****, the acceptable currency of the realm.
... There are so many ways to imagine this mindset—or maybe its many mindsets with many origins—in which so many are mired. Perhaps one version devolves from academic debate, which at its best is a constructive, collaborative building of an argument through testing and challenge, but at its worst represents the habitual tearing down of everything, and encourages a subculture of sourness that couldn’t be less productive.
...There is idealism somewhere under this pile of bile, the pernicious idealism that wants the world to be perfect and is disgruntled that it isn’t—and that it never will be. That’s why the perfect is the enemy of the good. Because, really, people, part of how we are going to thrive in this imperfect moment is through élan, esprit du corps, fierce hope, and generous hearts
...You don’t have to participate in this system, but you do have to describe it and its complexities and contradictions accurately, and you do have to understand that when you choose not to participate, it better be for reasons more interesting than the cultivation of your own moral superiority, which is so often also the cultivation of recreational bitterness.'

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/leftists_explain_things_to_me_20120928//

[the Leftâ„¢]

This isn't anything new. Impossibilism or whatever you want to call it; radical left sectarianism etc is developing into a chic lifestyle and political alignment, and has been for some while. I mean shit I consider most of the people who post on this website in this category of armchair scholars and internet revolutionists, with unrealistic expectations about genuine advocacy for left ideals put into practice(wages, rights etc) because they are most interested in romanticizing ideological contentment than applying their radical analysis of capitalism into concrete practice and positive change

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Instead, I constantly encounter a response that presumes the job at hand is to figure out what’s wrong, even when dealing with an actual victory, or a constructive development. Recently, I mentioned that California’s current attorney general, Kamala Harris, is anti-death penalty and also acting in good ways to defend people against foreclosure. A snarky Berkeley professor’s immediate response began, “Excuse me, she’s anti-death penalty, but let the record show that her office condoned the illegal purchase of lethal injection drugs.”

Apparently, we are not allowed to celebrate the fact that the attorney general for 12% of all Americans is pretty cool in a few key ways or figure out where that could take us. My respondent was attempting to crush my ebullience and wither the discussion, and what purpose exactly does that serve?

That was what is known as a "reality check", not a an "attempt to crush [her] ebullience". Don't you think that condoning the illegal purchase of lethal injection drugs waters down if not negates Harris' anti death penalty credentials?


My friend Jaime Cortez, a magnificent person and writer, sent this my way: “At a dinner party recently, I expressed my pleasure that some parts of Obamacare passed, and starting 2014, the picture would be improved. I was regaled with reminders of the horrors of the drone program that Obama supports, and reminded how inadequate Obamacare was. I responded that it is not perfect, but it was an incremental improvement, and I was glad for it. But really, I felt dumb and flat-footed for being grateful.”

You shouldn't be grateful for crumbs from the fucking table. You should be angry that more wasn't done.

And yes, extrajudicial killings of American citizens on the orders of the President is a big fucking deal, or at least it should be. If fewer people are willing to give Obama a pass for that kind of shitty behaviour then that is all to the good.


There is idealism somewhere under this pile of bile, the pernicious idealism that wants the world to be perfect and is disgruntled that it isn’t—and that it never will be. That’s why the perfect is the enemy of the good. Because, really, people, part of how we are going to thrive in this imperfect moment is through élan, esprit du corps, fierce hope, and generous hearts.

Of the actual examples given so far (both criticisms of bourgeois figures), neither display "idealism" in the sense described here. Pointing out that the Democrats are just as capable of shittiness (only in a different way) is the oppposite of idealism insofar as it rejects the false Republicrat binary so beloved of American liberals.

Maybe there's more to politics than the electoral sideshow?


One manifestation of this indiscriminate biliousness is the statement that gets aired every four years: that in presidential elections we are asked to choose the lesser of two evils. Now, this is not an analysis or an insight; it is a cliché, and a very tired one, and it often comes in the same package as the insistence that there is no difference between the candidates. You can reframe it, however, by saying: we get a choice, and not choosing at all can be tantamount in its consequences to choosing the greater of two evils.

And sometimes the best choice is not to accept what has been put in front of one by various interests (who don't have one's freedom or welfare at heart), but to take a third option.


But having marriage rights or discrimination protection or access to health care is not the lesser of two evils. If I vote for a Democrat, I do so in the hopes that fewer people will suffer, not in the belief that that option will eliminate suffering or bring us to anywhere near my goals or represent my values perfectly. Yet people are willing to use this “evils” slogan to wrap up all the infinite complexity of the fate of the Earth and everything living on it and throw it away.

Neatly stepping over the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are effectively funded by big business interests. I'm all for marriage equality, but I want more than that, and the Democrats are functionally incapable of enacting meaningful large-scale reform, because they depend on the system as it currently stands, just like the Republicans.


I don’t love electoral politics, particularly the national variety. I generally find such elections depressing and look for real hope to the people-powered movements around the globe and subtler social and imaginative shifts toward more compassion and more creativity. Still, every four years we are asked if we want to have our foot trod upon or sawed off at the ankle without anesthetic. The usual reply on the left is that there’s no difference between the two experiences and they prefer that Che Guevara give them a spa pedicure. Now, the Che pedicure is not actually one of the available options, though surely in heaven we will all have our toenails painted camo green by El Jefe.

A third option is not available. Why not? Because this liberal says so, and that settles it. Fuck that.


An undocumented immigrant writes me, “The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with.” Or as a Nevada activist friend put it, “Oh my God, go be sanctimonious in California and don’t vote or whatever, but those *****ing radicals are basically suppressing the vote in states where it matters.”

Who knew these "radicals" were so influential? :rolleyes:


The desperate are often much more hopeful than that—the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, that amazingly effective immigrant farmworkers’ rights group, is hopeful because quitting for them would mean surrendering to modern-day slavery, dire poverty, hunger, or death, not cable-TV reruns. They’re hopeful and they’re powerful, and they went up against Taco Bell, McDonald’s, Safeway, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe’s, and they won.

Good on them. They would do well not to get co-opted by the Democrats.

NGNM85, I find it hard to think of you as an anarchist when you insist on uncritically posting this sort of liberal drivel.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wow, that article is really pretty pathetic. First off, the author and us are not "allies"...she's a liberal who obviously wants to show us why we should shill for team Obama in 2012. What exactly has Barack Obama done that we should support, as communists? Kevin Carson recently wrote that, when Obama was first sworn in, that back then, he (Carson) wouldn't have been suprised if Obama instituted at least some sort of moderate reform, like a new Church Committee of sorts. Nothing like that ever happened!

The healthcare "reform" that she praises is nothing more than a subsidy program gifted to private insurance companies from the federal government. The fact that some on the liberal-left praise it as an "accomplishment" just shows their extreme myopia, I guess. Environmental standards are useful to business, too, as it provides a cover for rampant destruction on their part, as long as they keep up with standards. It allows them to go on offense, too, like when agribusiness sued farmers who advertised that their cows weren't treated with hormones.

Obama's foreign policy record is atrocious in every possible way from a left-wing standpoint, so I don't even think it warrants being addressed.

This woman's priorities are obviously quite different from ours, so I'm not sure why she even chose to address us in this manner, honestly.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The problem with this article is that it uses an actual tendency among anyone of any political thinking and tries to paint is as a unique problem of the left. The best lies have a kernal of truth and that kernal is that there always has been a strain of "impossibleism" on the far-left; but how is that really all that unique when there are single-issue progressives who act like changing one law will be a fix-all and so no other issues matter as much as repealing this or making a new constitutional amendment about that. How is it different that dogmatism of a neoliberal/libertarian kind?

But what this author really seems to be arguing for is to cut the Democrats some slack. Flip the script and how do establishment liberals respond to Occupy: where are your leaders, why don't you have demands, why aren't you all pascifists on principle, why don't you do this or that or dress like me so you'll be traken seriously? What's the matter are no social movements good enough for these liberals? Like the one I read in Mother Jones who said in 2003 that they wouldn't participate in the anti-war demos unless protesters started dressing respectable in suits and ties like in the civil rights era. WTF? How bout I don't read your magazine until you wear visors while writing on typewriters like in "His Girl Friday". Of course during the civil rights movement, the same type of liberals who demand that all movements look like the myth of the civil rights movement that they've cultivated in the time since then criticized the movement for being too disruptive, causing too much violence, and demanding too much too fast - coz, you know if you scare the Dixiecrats, then the Democrats will loose elections and they are the best friend the negro ever had, except when they were the KKK and the Dixiecrats and in charge of segregation and Jim Crow.

So really this article isn't singling out the radical left because of a unique behavior or tendency (since as I have said this could be argued of any polticial world-view... I mean interest in any kind of politics at least signals a sense of that induvidual that things aren't perfect as they are and left alone). What it ultimately is signaling out the radical left for is being critical of Liberalism.

[Luís Henrique]

Ms. Solnit's criticism is indeed very weak, and liberal-oriented, which is a pity, because the left in general, and the American left in particular, certainly deserves a good dose of criticism.

Luís Henrique

[Raúl Duke]

I don't see the purpose of posting this article on a radical left forum...I think the article was written by a liberal Democrat cheer-leader trying to get the progressives and such to vote and "stop complaining." Nevertheless, many progressives were probably going to vote for Obama anyway since to them he's the epitome of a lesser evil vis-a-vis Romney, Paul Ryan, and the now pretty whacky GOP.

Most of us don't vote/engage in bourgeois politics, particularly not as part of our radical politics (perhaps people here do vote for the Dems, but any principled radical would have no illusions about such a vote nor consider that a part of their political practice as a socialist)

I assume this woman was addressing progressives and progressive activists (labeling them leftist or perhaps even calling them "far-leftist" like how a Stalinist may call others an "ultra-leftist"), but if she was addressing the actual radical left than she's laughably wasting her time.


the left in general, and the American left in particular, certainly deserves a good dose of criticism.

I agree, strongly.

[NGNM85]

This isn't anything new. Impossibilism or whatever you want to call it; radical left sectarianism etc is developing into a chic lifestyle and political alignment, and has been for some while. I mean shit I consider most of the people who post on this website in this category of armchair scholars and internet revolutionists, with unrealistic expectations about genuine advocacy for left ideals put into practice(wages, rights etc) because they are most interested in romanticizing ideological contentment than applying their radical analysis of capitalism into concrete practice and positive change

Well.....yes. Well put. That nicely encapsulates the salient points. However; while I agree completely, and I fully recognize that this is hardly a new phenomenon, my point was (once again) to draw attention to this, and, perhaps, shine some light on how deeply destructive, and counterproductive this phenomena is.

[RadioRaheem84]

My god, there is no end to your painful liberal smugness, is there NGN?

This article reeks of pretentiousness. Another poster hit it right on the nail when they said this article is just the rantings of another self righteous smug liberal who gets pissy when his radical friends act "too anti-establishment".

Like most liberals, they find it vulgar to be so "against the system".

First off, you NGN, like the person in the article take this system serious in the sense that you believe in it's presuppositions. You accept it's framework and say that one must work through it to see any real change. Everyone not doing so is just a "Che" wannabe.

I am surprised that you haven't gone one step further and advocated market driven solutions to poverty too. There are a lot of organizations out there that use all the technocratic fluff to reduce poverty by .0001 percent in certain areas, and they work. I am talking about NGOs, organizations like Toms Shoes, etc. Development consulting? Microfinance? They have been somewhat of a mild alleviation, a bandaid on a gun shot wound that have helped some poor people. The rags you tout and cite so much praise them! And they're organizations that were started by liberals and progressives who "understand" the system and work within it.

I think it's more destructive to stifle real viable solutions and alternatives in favor of accepting the current framework and working within in like these liberals want us to.

In other words liberalism is counter productive.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well.....yes. Well put. That nicely encapsulates the salient points. However; while I agree completely, and I fully recognize that this is hardly a new phenomenon, my point was (once again) to draw attention to this, and, perhaps, shine some light on how deeply destructive, and counterproductive this phenomena is.

What really gets me is that the whole article reeks of the idea that there is no viable alternative to working outside the electoral system/bourgeois progressive framework.

If you really are some kind of anarchist NGNM85, then you should know that simply isn't true.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well.....yes. Well put. That nicely encapsulates the salient points. However; while I agree completely, and I fully recognize that this is hardly a new phenomenon, my point was (once again) to draw attention to this, and, perhaps, shine some light on how deeply destructive, and counterproductive this phenomena is.

Ok well this happens, but you don't need to be a revolutionary to engage in sideline-criticisms, in fact that's 90% of the non-porn and non-mp3 part of the internet.

But there are pleanty of discussions here and pleanty of opinions on the sectarianism which has been a feature of the left - particularly where we have little real connections and ability to organize things. Vaguely-anarchistic riot-hoppers who don't organize with anyone who doesn't have their "pure" tactics or Trot sects who won't organize with anyone that doesn't have a "pure" line on this or that is an actual thing, but again I think it has a lot more to do with being placed on the sidelines of movements and struggle or the lack of struggle at all.

But we can easily see pleanty of examples of small victories which are championed by large chuncks of the left: the Republic Windows and Doors sit-in, Occupy itself, Wisconsin (which lost, but still helped workers to mobilize against austerity in a very public and initially independant way). The Oscar Grant movement here in Oakland was only able to get a murdering cop in jail for a year... but I still see this as overall a victory because people organized and made this happen whereas initially the city wanted to sweep it under the rug, not even have internal dicipline or investigations into the cop. This has made it easier for us to continue to oppose police violence - even in cases where there is no video, cases that before the Oscar Grant movement would have just disappeared after the first couple days of news stories on it. These are small positive developments in the larger revolutionary sense, but these do help make steps in the right direction. That direction is the key - these actions move in the direction of more regular people fighting for their interests or defending themselves. Some legislative half-measure by Democrats is just putting frosting on the same pile of shit the Republicans are pushing on us, so it's not a small step in the right direction... or actually it could be said to be a small step in the right direction while on a bullet train heading in the opposite direction. That is not something to celebreate.

[NGNM85]

What really gets me is that the whole article reeks of the idea that there is no viable alternative to working outside the electoral system/bourgeois progressive framework.

If you really are some kind of anarchist NGNM85, then you should know that simply isn't true.

Not only was that not said; it wasn't even implied, by myself, or Miss Solnit.

The point that I'm making, the primary point that Miss Solnit is making, is the stupidity of taking the opposite track, of Radicals categorically abstaining from ever availing themselves of the institutional mechanisms built into the political system, and, even more, vilifying, and demonizing anyone who has the temerity to even suggest it.

[NGNM85]

That was what is known as a "reality check", not a an "attempt to crush [her] ebullience". Don't you think that condoning the illegal purchase of lethal injection drugs waters down if not negates Harris' anti death penalty credentials?

It's not irrelevent. However; from what I gather, the point she was making, was, first; to criticize this reflexive, kneejerk tendency of Radicals to pair every positive with a negative, and to, thereby invalidate it. Michal Parenti described something similar in the preface to Democracy For the Few. From Wikipedia; 'According to Parenti, reacting to mainstream commentators who turn every systemic vice and deficiency into a virtue, leftist critics of the status quo, seeing no real victories or progress in the centuries of popular struggle, have felt compelled to turn every virtue into a vice. To counter this trend, he says, people should recognize that real gains have been made, democracy refuses to die, and both at home and abroad popular forces continue the democratic struggle, even against great odds.' That's a large part of what Miss Solnit is talking about.

Second; I think it's to point out the cognitive dissonance where people would conclude that Harris is, therefore, hopelessly tainted, and, perhaps end up not voting for her in an election where she's running against another candidate who is an outspoken advocate of capital punishment, perhaps swinging the election in their favor. Now; if you're sincere in your convictions; how is that smart? It makes no sense.


You shouldn't be grateful for crumbs from the fucking table. You should be angry that more wasn't done.

I'm not going to get sucked into a pointless debate about the phrasing. The point is, again, this pathological, reflexive need to, again; 'turn every vice into a virtue.' Let's take a specific example; the Affordable Care Act. I'm hardly in love with it, myself, there are a number of sound criticisms one could make. However; according to the CBO study, (Being the most reliable on there is.) the number of individuals who will have health coverage because of this bill is something like 36 million. I'm not on my knees thanking the wonderful, benevolent, whatever, in Washington DC, for that, that wouldn't even make sense. However; as a Socialist, I have to care about that. I have to. This is the context in which she was using the word; 'grateful', which I wouldn't have used, but suffice to say, while it's not ideal, I'm glad that happened. I can't be indifferent as to whether or not millions of working class Americans, specifically; 36 million, have healthcare, or not. The thing is most of the folks around here not only seem disinterested, (I'm not going to bother harping on how criminally negligent it was that the Radical Left were totally absent during the healthcare battle, which was, potentially, the issue of greatest possible importance to the working class.) but actually contemptuous of this. One member told me she was actually excited about the possibility of the bill being overturned by the Supreme Court. (?!!) If you actually give a shit about the working class; this makes no sense.


And yes, extrajudicial killings of American citizens on the orders of the President is a big fucking deal, or at least it should be. If fewer people are willing to give Obama a pass for that kind of shitty behaviour then that is all to the good.

Of course, she's not disputing that. The issue, again; is that Radicals therefore (passively) oppose every policy, or every politician, even to the effect of exacerbating the things that they are, supposedly, so concerned about.


Of the actual examples given so far (both criticisms of bourgeois figures), neither display "idealism" in the sense described here.

The idealisim she's describing is the 'Impossibilism' that ICanHazClassWar pointed out; this rigid, uncompromising insistence on perceived ideological purity that insists on nothing less than everything it wants, immediately, and, in so doing, obstinately opposes anything short of that, and, in so doing act as a barricade preventing the Left from making incremental gains, or, any other kind, for that matter.


Pointing out that the Democrats are just as capable of shittiness (only in a different way) is the oppposite of idealism...

They are both 'bourgeois parties', although I dislike using that kind of jargon, however; nobody who knows anything about American politics (Which disqualifies many of the folks around these parts.) can honestly say they are the same. Any rational person, who knew what they were talking about would conclude that there are slight policy differencies between the parties (Which is most stark in the realm of social policy.) owing to the fact that they reflect different elite constituencies. Furthermore; of those two, the working class, predictably, does better under Democratic administrations, (Which is not to remotely suggest that they aren't a 'Bourgeois party', in every sense.) as a result of that policy varience. Those are just the facts, Jack.


insofar as it rejects the false Republicrat binary so beloved of American liberals.

It's not clear to me exactly what you're saying; if you're saying the spectrum of political thought, or policy is much broader than the narrow range between the establishment parties that is shaped by the ruling institutions into the offical acceptable framework for conversation, outside of which they dare not tread; I agree, absolutely. However; if you're talking about electoral prospects; you're dead wrong. There's just no other way to see it. That's a goal that we could work towards, making the changes needed to make such a thing possible. However; the aforementioned demographic would obstinately refuse to participate in such an endeavor, would demonize and attack anyone who tried, and wouldn't vote for a Socialist party, (Presuming there was one that stood a shot at getting elected.) anyways.


Maybe there's more to politics than the electoral sideshow?

Of course. Also; to be clear, I'm not simply referring to voting for politicians, I'm also talking about voting for legislation. In most states, Americans can actually vote on particular bills through ballot initiatives, and referenda. For example; me, and a majority of the Bay State electorate voted to decriminalize cannabis in 2008, this November, judging from polling data, we're going to legalize medicinal cannabis. What I'm saying is that doing the opposite, categorically refusing to utilize the political mechanisms built into our political system, to take advantage of that, and use it, is almost equally stupid, and counterproductive. That is the point.


And sometimes the best choice is not to accept what has been put in front of one by various interests (who don't have one's freedom or welfare at heart), but to take a third option.

Yeah; if a third option, which is better than the other two, exists. You don't always get three options, in life, oftentimes you only get one. What really galls me is that so many serious supposedly scientifically minded socialists are behaving like wide-eyed dreamers, choosing to live in fantasyland over reality.


Neatly stepping over the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are effectively funded by big business interests.

They are both 'bourgeois parties.' Howver; again, they reflect different elite constituencies, which is reflected in the, admittedly, usually narrow policy differences.


I'm all for marriage equality,

Ok, but how do you get marriage equality by not voting for politicians who support gay marriage, and, potentially, not even voting for gay marriage, itself? I believe the issue is on ballots in four states this November. (Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington.) However; I predict that most Radicals, in those states, will not show up to vote for it. I even had someone on here say to me, seriously; (Paraphrasing, of course.) 'Oh, I would never, ever vote for gay marriage, but don't dare tell me I don't care about gay rights!' Really, it's a testament to the human brains' seemingly miraculous tolerance for cognitive dissonance.


but I want more than that, and the Democrats are functionally incapable of enacting meaningful large-scale reform, because they depend on the system as it currently stands, just like the Republicans.


If you are saying that it is impossible to fundamentally alter our society, specifically, to acheive socialism through the ballot box, alone, I'd have to agree I'm rather skeptical, about that. However; we can avail ourselves of the mechanisms built into our political systems, and we can use them to improve the conditions of the working class, and oppressed minorities, or marginalized groups, and to empower the working class, etc. Also; while, again, it's probably impossible to transition to Socialism in such a way, that does not mean that what I guess you'd call social democracy, as a tactic, is not absolutely vital, and fundamental to that process. First; we have an ethical, and ideological imperative to always fight for the working class, etc., that is absolutely paramount. Second; there's no way to build a broad-based, genuine working class movement without demolishing the structural impediments that devide them on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, etc. Third; because, similarly, there is absolutely zero possibility of building such a working class movement if we consistently refuse to address the daily struggles that the working class faces. Last, but not least; the idea of fundamental social change, in a word; revolution, will only gain mass acceptance upon such time as the working class, or a significantly large segment of the working class is organized, conscious of itself, pursuing it's interest as a class, and finds itself frustrated in this capacity by the structural limitations of that system, and not a minute sooner.


A third option is not available. Why not? Because this liberal says so, and that settles it. Fuck that.


No; because it's just an incontrovertible fact. There's simply no chance of third parties to win any significant presence in the government, especially on the federal, or state level, but, also, for the most part, even at the level of city government. That's just a fact. It's a mathematical impossibility, right now, certainly, in the coming election. That said; I would love to open things up for Socialists, etc., to win elections, however; that's not going to happen by November. There are a number of barriers to third parties. There are various state laws, there's a sort of unofficial media blackout, etc., etc. However; the biggest obstacle is the Supreme Courts' ungodly ruling in Citizens' United, which had all sorts of horrible effects (It's going to get a lot worse.) not in the least of which was dramatically amplifying the control of corporations over the electoral, and legislative process, as well as substantially increasing the cost of running a campaign. Until this ruling is overturned; third parties have no chance. The good news is that, while it's not easy to overturn a Supreme Court decision, it is doable, and, even more advantageous is the fact that the American public fucking hates it. While the parties are devided on it, what's interesting is that this crosses ideological lines among the public, I think the numbers were 80% of Democrats against, and about 79% of Republicans. That's within the margin of error. That's very easy to capitalize on, and a faction of Occupy already tried with something called the 99% Declaration, however; the biggest impediment to this, again, is this enormous puritanical sect who obstinately oppose, and denounce any attempt at acheiving incremental gains.


Who knew these "radicals" were so influential? :rolleyes:

It's difficult to measure, but I think it absolutely has that effect.


Good on them. They would do well not to get co-opted by the Democrats.

No-one is suggesting that the state is legitimate, however; we should acknowledge that it exists.


NGNM85, I find it hard to think of you as an anarchist when you insist on uncritically posting this sort of liberal drivel.

How disappointingly predictable. I really hoped you were above this sort of behavior. In short; you're wrong on both counts; I have no idea what Miss Solnit's politics are, it's by no means clear, however; there is nothing funamentally Liberal (Presuming we're using it literally.) about the article, which makes a very sound point, which, clearly, needs to be emphasized, because it's a very serious problem. Second; nothing I've said in this thread, or anywhere else, for that matter, is in any way philosophically inconsistent with Anarchism. What I find troubling is I suspect you know this, and are merely throwing red meat to the crowd. (I guess that's one way to boost your Rep score.) It's a very serious accusation, but the needle is definitely twitching on my Bullshit Detector. However; I will stop there, if only because we need to take a certain amount on faith if we're going to have a conversation. However; I must insist that you qualify the first part of that. Don't drop a bomb like that and walk away.

[NGNM85]

My god, there is no end to your painful liberal smugness, is there NGN?

This article reeks of pretentiousness. Another poster hit it right on the nail when they said this article is just the rantings of another self righteous smug liberal who gets pissy when his radical friends act "too anti-establishment".

You're wrong on every count. (At least you're consistent.)

The problem isn't that people like you are against the establishment, so am I. The problem is that because of this you misguidedly, categorically refuse to interact with that system, even in the limited means availible to you, oppose any attempt to do so, and vilify and attack anyone who even suggests it, even at the cost of incremetal gains, or any other kind, that would help the working class, and/or minorities, or marginalized groups, and by so doing risking, and, in a number of cases causing, by your inaction, loss, or injury to those groups you so passionately proclaim to care about. I'm not calling you a liar, at least in terms of your expressed concern for the working class, I believe thats' genuine. I'm just saying that you're going about it in a way that is totally counterproductive, thatruns contrary to those very principles that drive you.


Like most liberals, they find it vulgar to be so "against the system".

See above.


First off, you NGN, like the person in the article take this system serious in the sense that you believe in it's presuppositions. You accept it's framework and say that one must work through it to see any real change. Everyone not doing so is just a "Che" wannabe.

No, I accept that it exists. I don't maintain the pleasing, but wrong illusion that if I pretend it isn't there for long enough it will magically happen. Almost assuredly Socialism will not be realized through the parliamentary process, however; it's probably impossible to acheive by categorically refusing to participate in the political system. Again; the idea of revolution will only gain mass acceptance upon such time as the working class, or a significantly large segment of the working class, and it's allies, are organized, conscious of itself, pursuing it's interest as a class, and finds itself frustrated in this capacity by the structural limitations of that system. That, or, possibly, some catestrophic calamity that basically demolishes society as we know it.


I think it's more destructive to stifle real viable solutions and alternatives in favor of accepting the current framework and working within in like these liberals want us to.

Except 'Impossibilists' like yourself aren't proposing any viable solutions. That's the problem. You're just a massive frozen obstacle, and every time someone does come up with a viable motion you vilify, and attack them until they go away.


In other words liberalism is counter productive.

Liberalism is a philosophy, not an activity, not that I expect you to understand that. The problem with Liberals, and Progressives is that they don't understand the social ills they hope to alleviate are the inevitable consequences of the prevailing social structure. It should be our job, as Radicals, to dispel that illusion, but we should be doing a lot of things...

[NGNM85]

Ok well this happens, but you don't need to be a revolutionary to engage in sideline-criticisms, in fact that's 90% of the non-porn and non-mp3 part of the internet.


Granted.


But there are pleanty of discussions here and pleanty of opinions on the sectarianism which has been a feature of the left - particularly where we have little real connections and ability to organize things. Vaguely-anarchistic riot-hoppers who don't organize with anyone who doesn't have their "pure" tactics or Trot sects who won't organize with anyone that doesn't have a "pure" line on this or that is an actual thing, but again I think it has a lot more to do with being placed on the sidelines of movements and struggle or the lack of struggle at all.

That happens, but the phenomena described here, which I like to call; 'ultra-Radicalism', which ICanHazClassWar called; 'impossibilism', is much more pervasive, and much more destructive. It's not that they are disinterested in cooperating with this, or that sect; they're adamantly opposed to doing anything at all.


But we can easily see pleanty of examples of small victories which are championed by large chuncks of the left: the Republic Windows and Doors sit-in, Occupy itself, Wisconsin (which lost, but still helped workers to mobilize against austerity in a very public and initially independant way). The Oscar Grant movement here in Oakland was only able to get a murdering cop in jail for a year... but I still see this as overall a victory because people organized and made this happen whereas initially the city wanted to sweep it under the rug, not even have internal dicipline or investigations into the cop. This has made it easier for us to continue to oppose police violence - even in cases where there is no video, cases that before the Oscar Grant movement would have just disappeared after the first couple days of news stories on it.

Was the Radical left a significant presence in those events? Did Wisconsin Radicals actually participate in the attempted recall, for that matter, did they vote against him the first time? I admit I haven't done any sort of study into this, but I seriously doubt it.


These are small positive developments in the larger revolutionary sense, but these do help make steps in the right direction. That direction is the key - these actions move in the direction of more regular people fighting for their interests or defending themselves.

That's my point, exactly, and that's what the impossibilists adamantly refuse to do, furthermore; they demonize anyone who dares to suggest it.


Some legislative half-measure by Democrats is just putting frosting on the same pile of shit the Republicans are pushing on us, so it's not a small step in the right direction... or actually it could be said to be a small step in the right direction while on a bullet train heading in the opposite direction. That is not something to celebreate.

So; gay marriage isn't a positive development? Getting 36 million Americans healthcare isn't a positive development? Etc. Look, you can feel as upset as you want about these things, that's your neurosis, what I don't understand is how self-described Socialists can be indifferent to such things, or actually actively oppose them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That happens, but the phenomena described here, which I like to call; 'ultra-Radicalism', which ICanHazClassWar called; 'impossibilism', is much more pervasive, and much more destructive. It's not that they are disinterested in cooperating with this, or that sect; they're adamantly opposed to doing anything at all.We can talk about impossibleism but for one thing it's more of just a tendency among any viewpoint as I argued in my last post. Second, in this sense impossibleism is self-marginalizing since much of the left isn't abstentionist from struggle. Third, what is described in the article is not "impossibleism" but a principled rejection of some of these policies for specific political reasons.


Was the Radical left a significant presence in those events? Did Wisconsin Radicals actually participate in the attempted recall, for that matter, did they vote against him the first time? I admit I haven't done any sort of study into this, but I seriously doubt it. Presence, yes. Significant? Well what do you mean by that? Did they play a positive role - on the whole yes. But aside from in some Occupy camps, revolutionaries were largely not the dominant political force or viewpoint.

I can be pretty sure that no decent radicals voted for Scott Walker. Probably many voted for his opponent and more voted for his recall, but I think that voting for the Democrat challenger or advocating the recall campaign are two loosing strategies that radicals should not be involved in. Literally actually since neither of these things passed. But in a bigger sense of strategy, the Democrats opposed Walker but not Walker's bill. The Democratic politicians walked out, but that was the extent of it, then rather than trying to recall the bill that started the protests, the Democrats just tried to get rid of Walker the person. This is because they both have the same agenda ultimately - they just disagree where and how exactly to cut.

The recall campaign was also a bad strategy from a working class radical perspective because it de-mobilized the actual significant and effective thing about the protest which was the actual movement from below and the solidarity generated by a spontaneous instance of working class resistance. So rather than continue to build off of that power and build new networks and organization at the grassroots, the efforts were diverted into one where workers have the role of passively supporting their union leaders who support the Democrats who then loose and don't even put up much of a challenge anyway.


That's my point, exactly, and that's what the impossibilists adamantly refuse to do, furthermore; they demonize anyone who dares to suggest it. Well then as I said above, these sentiments are self-marginalizing. Folding your hands and waiting for revolution doesn't do much of anything and it may have some pull during downturns in struggle (which we've lived through a pretty long era of) and may have some pull with people talking ideas on the internet, but as actual working class struggle picks up, they will either drop their view and join in, or just be marginalized and unnoticed.


So; gay marriage isn't a positive development?Yes it is a positive development but it can't be won without a fight and wouldn't have gotten this far without people pushing and organizing for it. If it was just because we "elected the right people" though, then why did it take 35 years of Democrats after Harvy Milk for the San Francisco Democratic establishment to halfheartedly support gay marriage. Why was the word coming from Democratic party politicians that "gays demanded too much too fast" when Bush was re-elected? Why would Bill Clinton have passed a federal law banning gay marriage (the Defense of Marriage Act) and why would Obama who claims to support this "in his heart" doesn't pick up a pen and reverse the thing? Why did his administration argue to continue DOMA in court? He got billions to the Banks despite opposition in the population and congressional opposition... but why can he do that in a pinch, but everything else is "too complicated" and "we have to take our time". Well fuck, when it's the banks it's "We must act" when they want to invade Iraq "we must act" when we ask Democrats if they can fufil their campaign promises to their base it's "Woah Nelly!"


Getting 36 million Americans healthcare isn't a positive development?Not if you're talking about Obama's plan. That's a giveaway to insurance companies - this was originally a RIGHT-WING plan for healthcare developed by the freaking Heritage Foundation and proposed by REPUBLICANS in the 1990s! Why are the Republicans so confused that Romeny's plan looks like their hated "socialist obamacare"? Because it's basically the same plan that Obama got from conservatives!

So this is a very good example of how the Democrats take a step in the right direction, but they do-so while standing on a train going the other direction. Education is another example, Obama's education reform is charter schools and breaking the teacher's unions... hmm a plan that would be to the right of any Republican in the 1980s! Well I guess it's better than Newt Gingrich's plan to make black students janitors - so destroying the teacher's union is a step in the right direction away from jim-crow education. Yay?


Etc. Look, you can feel as upset as you want about these things, that's your neurosis, what I don't understand is how self-described Socialists can be indifferent to such things, or actually actively oppose them.I am not an impossibleist and probably that accusation has just caused some Spart somewhere to do a spit-take. I do believe that some reforms can have a positive effect on the class. But not the reform by itself, not in the abstract. If a reform is fought for by workers and won, it is a small step in people taking power over their own lives through their own action in coordination with others. This can help build independent organization of workers who can then fight for their common class interests. It's a question of strategy. Our power as a class won't come from passively voting for one ruler or another - without struggle there really can't be any progress. With struggle even a Mubarak can be forced to give in to popular demands.

[campesino]

my allies are the anarchists, the left-communists, the Trotskyist, the Marxist-Leninist, the council-communist, the Maoist, if there is a true leftist tendency that is missing, it is by mistake.

[cynicles]

It's cute when liberals pretend like they're a part of the left.

[Dean]

The poison often emerges around electoral politics. Look, Obama does bad things and I deplore them, though not with a lot of fuss, since they’re hardly a surprise.
The notion here is that we're supposed to be less critical of Obama because we knew that he was evil beforehand, and after all, you already know that we don't agree with his "deplorable" acts so forgive us for de-emphasizing them.

Well, it doesn't take much investigation to see why this is absurd. If you're really concerned about, say, Obama's barbecue of peasants in Pakistan, well the media is pretty mute about it but we don't need to fill in the gap because you already knew he was slaughtering peasants. Besides, we all know we could be diverting the funds from that monstrosity to build factors of production at home, and since this is perfectly obvious we should neither criticize Obama for choosing the immoral, inefficient path nor should we be advocating for these things, so obvious that they are.

One gets the distinct sense that Solnit is simply not as significant a stakeholder in these issues. Perhaps she has a pretty secure economic position here in the US. Perhaps she really, genuinely doesn't care if peasants are slaughtered to make a pipeline more profitable. Perhaps she doesn't have as much at stake when this conflagration inevitably comes home to roost.

The issue isn't that Obama is better than Romney. That's not clear, for one thing. But even if it was, it would be a marginal difference. The issue is that he has actively subverted the US left, and that he is simply a monster who is bad for the US and bad for foreigners. For the most part, progressive advances have come from other actors in politics. Obama and his backers are right on this one thing: they say we need to push them if we want them to be progressive. They're right: he has never shown an interest in progressing our nation from barbarism and destitution. If we want this change, we have to demand it. But this advocacy is precisely what Solnit is rejecting.

[doesn't even make sense]

Let's play devil's advocate for a moment, since Solnit is clearly writing for progressive reformists who are anti-Obama rather than the kind of radicals that frequent this site.

If this Solnit character was even worthy of the title of progressive reformist she would be strongly in favor of internal criticism and vocal advocacy of important issues among the liberal left. How does she think the Republicans became such an effective vehicle for rather extreme conservative ideologies? They've been eating their own for a long time now even to the point of giving up chances at taking power in favor of claiming the long term victories of strengthening their coalitions and their ability to frame political discourse in the terms of their own ideology.

Here's what an actual progressive reformist (recently alleged by wingnuts to be one of Obama's mentors, ironically) has to say, for contrast:


President Obama must be defeated in the coming election.
He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States. He has spent trillions of dollars to rescue the moneyed interests and left workers and homeowners to their own devices. He has subordinated the broadening of economic and educational opportunities to the important but secondary issue of access to health care in the mistaken belief that he would be spared a fight.
He has disguised his surrender with an empty appeal to tax justice. He has delivered the politics of democracy to the rule of money. He has reduced justice to charity.
His policy is financial confidence and food stamps. He has evoked a politics of hand holding. But no one changes the world without a struggle.
Unless he is defeated, there cannot be a contest for the re-orientation of the Democratic Party as the vehicle of a progressive alternative in the country. There will be a cost for his defeat in judicial and administrative appointments.
The risk of military adventurism, however, under the rule of his opponents, will be no greater than it would be under him.
Only a political reversal can allow the voice of democratic prophesy to speak once again in American life. Its speech is always dangerous. Its silence is always fatal.

[MarxSchmarx]

Let's play devil's advocate for a moment, since Solnit is clearly writing for progressive reformists who are anti-Obama rather than the kind of radicals that frequent this site.

If this Solnit character was even worthy of the title of progressive reformist she would be strongly in favor of internal criticism and vocal advocacy of important issues among the liberal left. How does she think the Republicans became such an effective vehicle for rather extreme conservative ideologies? They've been eating their own for a long time now even to the point of giving up chances at taking power in favor of claiming the long term victories of strengthening their coalitions and their ability to frame political discourse in the terms of their own ideology.



Although I disagree with your analysis that extremism is the reason for the success of the AMerican republicans, you are right to look to what the reactionaries are doing.

The ruling oligarchs in America have largely concluded that their future lies with an imperfect vehicle like the Republican party for establishing their neo-feudalism. Despite all protestations by (I guess) the people Solnit targets that there isn't any substantive difference between the two parties, the ruling class is betting heavily on one and trying its best to turn the other into essentially a junior coalition partner, succeeding here and there.

If the whole affair were so inconsequential, why are the capitalists pouring immense sums of money into one side? Why are the fascists (and I don't mean the toothless clowns over at stormfront) so insistent and devoted to the apparently meaningless task of filling the judiciary and law books and military and all that in America with their henchmen? And these reactionaries do so even if the vast majority of Republican politicians aren't demanding to nuke Cuba or end universal adult suffrage.

I have no reason to think the right wing is any more misguided or delusional, at least as it concerns political tactics, than the "liberals" we on the left deride. In fact if anything they are incredibly good at what they do - we can only dream of their ideological hegemony in so many areas of life, especially in the advanced capitalist societies. And indeed they famously invest heavily outside of elections in things like obnoxious "non-profit think tanks", media outlets, and other brick and morter movement building entities that should be the radical left's mainstay.

But for those dismissing any value in bourgeois electoral politics, it still is a very real question why the hard core reactionaries invest so heavily in electing Republicans, or even spreading a relatively mild gospel of liberal democracy.

Indeed in every capitalist democracy precisely this dynamic ensues. Capitalists from Mexico to Germany to Australia invest substantial sums to defeat the supposed "other capitalist party". Of course they do it as a "stick" to get the reformists in line by providing "carrots" to the reformist's enemies. But then the question should be, why aren't we using "sticks" to get the conservatives in line by providing "carrots" to the reformists? Such actions aren't unprecedented, as happened in making institutions like social insurance a "third rail of politics" even in the USA. The example of how the ruling class operates raises serious questions about the value of ideological purism that Solnit decries.

[Raúl Duke]

Look, what I'm going to argue at this point is that in the end I don't really care if leftists en masse ended up voting for the Democrats because they think that it's the lesser of two evils and so on. Hell, even I'm considering it (being a college student and all, Paul Ryan and co. want to fuck me over when it comes to Pell grants and student loans I depend on) although I can't be arsed enough to go register and vote. I don't really see this as a problem nor do I think it's an obligation for leftists and radical leftist organizations to tell people to not vote at all.

But I'm thinking more in terms of organizational tactics and such. I don't believe it's the job of socialists/leftists to endorse bourgeois candidates whether at a personal level or especially a resolution-mandated endorsement from a radical organization; ever, at all. What I do believe that these organization, even the liberal-progressives, have the right to criticize all candidates/parties; that's fair-game.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The ruling oligarchs in America have largely concluded that their future lies with an imperfect vehicle like the Republican party for establishing their neo-feudalism. Despite all protestations by (I guess) the people Solnit targets that there isn't any substantive difference between the two parties, the ruling class is betting heavily on one and trying its best to turn the other into essentially a junior coalition partner, succeeding here and there.I'm not sure how you are reaching these conclusions. For one thing most US cities are controlled by the Democratic Party - my own town, San Francisco, Chicago, probably haven't had any sizable Republican influence for decades. So that would seem like a problem for a plan to have Republican control when the major population centers and centers of many industries are in areas basically controlled by Democratic Party machines.

Second, from what I've seen in the mainstream press, Obama has recieved MORE contributions - record breaking in fact - than Romney. Since there are in the 400 and 300 million dollar rage respectivly, I doubt that the bulk of that is personal contributions from workers and petty-bourgoise supporters for the most part.

[NGNM85]

The problem with this article is that it uses an actual tendency among anyone of any political thinking and tries to paint is as a unique problem of the left. The best lies have a kernal of truth and that kernal is that there always has been a strain of "impossibleism" on the far-left; but how is that really all that unique when there are single-issue progressives who act like changing one law will be a fix-all and so no other issues matter as much as repealing this or making a new constitutional amendment about that. How is it different that dogmatism of a neoliberal/libertarian kind?

I don't think anyone implied that this was a characteristic exclusive to the Radical Left.


But what this author really seems to be arguing for is to cut the Democrats some slack.

No, that's not what she's saying. What she's saying is that those criticisms have to be understood in context, and acted upon in a rational way. To not choose the lesser evil, when given the choice, out of some misguided puritanical impulse, is to court the greater one. That never makes sense. Let's take this into the real world; over the last few years, as Solnit notes; we've seen a surprisingly intense assault on reproductive rights. Now; a number of the new provisions limiting access to abortion were not necessarily passed by ballot initiatives, however; the candidates that supported them, or passed them absolutely were elected, moreover; in most cases the candidates' extreme Pro-Life views were probably one of the main pillars of their campaign. As a result of doing nothing to defeat those proposed laws, or the candidates who supported them; abortion is significantly less accessible to many Americans than it was just a few years ago. Presuming we actually care about that, this 'principled abstention' flies directly in the face of the stated principles, and is remarkably stupid.


Flip the script and how do establishment liberals respond to Occupy: where are your leaders, why don't you have demands,

First; you don't have to accept any particular ideology to ask these questions. Also; I'm not going to touch the question of leadership, because I don't want to derail the thread. The question of demands, on the other hand, is both valid, and topical. This is vital for two reasons; first; if you don't lay out even the broadest list of greivances you basically leave it entirely up to the other side to decide what terms they'd like to accept, which probably aren't even close to what you want. Second; any such movement is almost certainly doomed because it's nearly impossible to build support, to sway the public to your side, and attract new members when you have no agenda. Later, you mention the Civil Rights movement. The raison d'etre of the Civil Rights movement was exceedingly simple; black Americans were demanding the same rights, and freedoms accorded to whites, to be treated like human beings. That was abundantly clear, and widely understood. What did Occupy stand for? It's really impossible to say. This refusal to coalesce around even a loose set of core principles, or demands is, I believe, is what has been killing Occupy, which seems to be very near it's end.


why aren't you all pascifists on principle,

No; that's not what I said, that's not what she said. There's a difference between being against violence (pacifism) and being against stupid violence. Violence that is counterproductive to our efforts, that undermines that which we are trying to acheive, is stupid violence. However; this is really a debate better had, elsewhere.


why don't you do this or that or dress like me so you'll be traken seriously?

While this is largely irrelevent, it is also a fairly sound point. Look; I absolutely love punk rock, but if you're trying to have a serious conversation with lawyers, or housewives, or construction workers about foreign policy, or economic justice; you should probably take the nosering out.


So really this article isn't singling out the radical left because of a unique behavior or tendency (since as I have said this could be argued of any polticial world-view... I mean interest in any kind of politics at least signals a sense of that induvidual that things aren't perfect as they are and left alone). What it ultimately is signaling out the radical left for is being critical of Liberalism.

No; you're just not understanding it. What she is criticizing, and quite legitimately so, is this feeble-minded, puritanical abstention, from the political arena, whether it's voting for candidates, voting for legislation, or, really any kind of incrementalism, at all, that acts as a massive obstacle preventing the Radical Left from making any headway, and often, by it's inaction actually makes things worse. That's the point.


We can talk about impossibleism but for one thing it's more of just a tendency among any viewpoint as I argued in my last post. Second, in this sense impossibleism is self-marginalizing since much of the left isn't abstentionist from struggle.

Not from what I've seen, not from the conversation that takes place on these boards. Just look at this thread. From all appearances; impossibilism is, overwhelmingly, the predominant viewpoint. Furthermore; it is this that represents the greatest obstacle to the Radical Left; we are our own worst enemy.


Third, what is described in the article is not "impossibleism" but a principled rejection of some of these policies for specific political reasons.

No, that's totally incorrect. Impossibilism is all she's talking about. Read it, again, if you don't believe me.


Presence, yes. Significant? Well what do you mean by that? Did they play a positive role - on the whole yes. But aside from in some Occupy camps, revolutionaries were largely not the dominant political force or viewpoint.

Like; more than a handful. Did most of the local Radicals actually show up, I guess, is what I'm asking. Personally; I'd be surprised.


I can be pretty sure that no decent radicals voted for Scott Walker.

That's a given.


Probably many voted for his opponent and more voted for his recall,

I have no hard data, but I'm skeptical. Most of these people won't even check a box to legalize pot, or gay marriage.


Well then as I said above, these sentiments are self-marginalizing. Folding your hands and waiting for revolution doesn't do much of anything and it may have some pull during downturns in struggle (which we've lived through a pretty long era of) and may have some pull with people talking ideas on the internet, but as actual working class struggle picks up, they will either drop their view and join in, or just be marginalized and unnoticed.

Oh, there's no question that it's marginalizing. Absolutely. Most of the Radical Left cling to their precious irrelevence as if it were a lover, or a life preserver. I'm also substantially more skeptical that people are going to snap out of it. I see no evidence of this. Quite the contrary. I think this is primarily what is killing Occupy, and will have a similar affect on any future endeavors.


Yes it is a positive development but it can't be won without a fight and wouldn't have gotten this far without people pushing and organizing for it.

Absolutely; nobody said otherwise.


Not if you're talking about Obama's plan. That's a giveaway to insurance companies - this was originally a RIGHT-WING plan for healthcare developed by the freaking Heritage Foundation and proposed by REPUBLICANS in the 1990s! Why are the Republicans so confused that Romeny's plan looks like their hated "socialist obamacare"? Because it's basically the same plan that Obama got from conservatives!

That's mostly accurate. However; what you also need to understand is that it provides insurance for 36 million Americans who would otherwise have none, as well as some of the other provisions like providing free preventative care like mammograms, and colonoscopies, ending lifetime care limits, ending denial or cancellation of coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions, and ending gender discrimination in fees because insurance companies were charging women more money, sometimes substantially more, for the same coverage, etc., etc. What I would ask you is; if you're indifferent to that, or if you'd rather go back to the status quo? (36 million more uninsured, etc.) Nobody who cares about the working class should say; yes to either of those questions. Anyone who does that very plainly does not give a shit about the working class.


I am not an impossibleist and probably that accusation has just caused some Spart somewhere to do a spit-take. I do believe that some reforms can have a positive effect on the class. But not the reform by itself, not in the abstract.

Nothing exists in a vaccum. I also must disagree. If you make it easier for working people to get education, to get healthcare, if you lift, or ease their burdens, to any degree; that's a positive effect. Furthermore; logistically, it's impossible to build a sizable working class movement if we ignore the pressing issues facing the middle class.


If a reform is fought for by workers and won, it is a small step in people taking power over their own lives through their own action in coordination with others. This can help build independent organization of workers who can then fight for their common class interests. It's a question of strategy. Our power as a class won't come from passively voting for one ruler or another - without struggle there really can't be any progress. With struggle even a Mubarak can be forced to give in to popular demands.

Voting is never passive. Not voting is passive.

Yes; the powers that be will, ultimately, bend to poular pressure, when it gets sufficiently instense. However; we could make that process a lot easier on ourselves. For example; allowing blatantly homophobic politicians to win elections doesn't really advance gay rights in any measurable way, in fact, it's deeply counterproductive.

[NGNM85]

The notion here is that we're supposed to be less critical of Obama because we knew that he was evil beforehand, and after all, you already know that we don't agree with his "deplorable" acts so forgive us for de-emphasizing them.

Well, it doesn't take much investigation to see why this is absurd. If you're really concerned about, say, Obama's barbecue of peasants in Pakistan, well the media is pretty mute about it but we don't need to fill in the gap because you already knew he was slaughtering peasants. Besides, we all know we could be diverting the funds from that monstrosity to build factors of production at home, and since this is perfectly obvious we should neither criticize Obama for choosing the immoral, inefficient path nor should we be advocating for these things, so obvious that they are.

One gets the distinct sense that Solnit is simply not as significant a stakeholder in these issues. Perhaps she has a pretty secure economic position here in the US. Perhaps she really, genuinely doesn't care if peasants are slaughtered to make a pipeline more profitable. Perhaps she doesn't have as much at stake when this conflagration inevitably comes home to roost.

You're missing the point. The point she's making is that hoever objectionable the administrations' policies, that doesn't mean that we should passively, or actively ensure the ascendency of one which will be even more objectionable by those same standards. That nomatter how bad your choices are, choosing the worst choice, or abstaining, and thereby risking the worst of the range of possible outcomes never makes sense. That's totally counterproductive, presuming you're genuine in the principles which supposedly motivated such criticisms.



The issue isn't that Obama is better than Romney. That's not clear, for one thing.

Only if you have no idea what you're talking about. It's absolutely clear.


But even if it was, it would be a marginal difference.

It's by no means clear what specifically constitutes a marginal difference. On the national scale, small differences can have big results. If a 'marginal difference' is 36 million more Americans having insurance vs. 36 million less, it's would be catestrophically stupid to choose the former. It's a no brainer.


The issue is that he has actively subverted the US left,


No, I don't think that's true at all. What's more; the inevitable outcome of this logic is that we should actually support the most brutal wing of the establishment, and the most brutal policies. This reduces the question of tactics to how much torture we must inflict upon the working class. Marx knew better. For example; he understood that both classes benefitted from the 10 Hours Law, he supported it because it was a boon to the working class. He wasn't willing to stab the working class in the eye just to spite the elites.


and that he is simply a monster who is bad for the US and bad for foreigners.

Ok, but that needs to be understood in context. The context is his opposition is worse.


For the most part, progressive advances have come from other actors in politics.

Granted, although; nothing occurs in a vacuum.


Obama and his backers are right on this one thing: they say we need to push them if we want them to be progressive. They're right: he has never shown an interest in progressing our nation from barbarism and destitution. If we want this change, we have to demand it.

That's a good idea, but that isn't what's happening, right now.


But this advocacy is precisely what Solnit is rejecting.

No, that's absolutely wrong. She's saying that we need to start pursuing those demands in a way that isn't counterproductive to actually acheiving them.

[NGNM85]

I don't see the purpose of posting this article on a radical left forum...

Well, because it happens to be about the Radical Left, and, more importantly because this; 'Impossibilism' that she's criticizing is, I would argue the most significant obstacle standing in our way.


I think the article was written by a liberal Democrat cheer-leader

It's by no means clear what her specific ideology is. Somewhere between Progressive, and Radical, it's never explicitly stated, more to the point; it's irrelevent.


trying to get the progressives and such to vote and "stop complaining." Nevertheless, many progressives were probably going to vote for Obama anyway since to them he's the epitome of a lesser evil vis-a-vis Romney, Paul Ryan, and the now pretty whacky GOP.

Not just to them, to everybody. It's a matter of empirical fact.


Most of us don't vote/engage in bourgeois politics,

That's precisely the point.


particularly not as part of our radical politics (perhaps people here do vote for the Dems, but any principled radical would have no illusions about such a vote nor consider that a part of their political practice as a socialist)

You can't be a Radical and have non-Radical politics. For example; I emphatically support gay rights, and so do Liberals, however; that does not mean that support for gay rights isn't fundamental to Radicalism, only that it isn't exclusive to Radicalism. Likewise, as such, all political activity of a Socialist is, by definition, Socialist political activity. Historically radicals have not been categorically opposed to political participation; Marx absolutely wasn't, Lenin wasn't, etc., etc. Nor does participating in the political process require you to adopt any illusions. The working class will be objectively better off with Elizabeth Warren in the Senate, than Scott Brown, just as they, especially minority youths, will be better off with Cannabis being legal, as opposed to illegal.


I assume this woman was addressing progressives and progressive activists (labeling them leftist or perhaps even calling them "far-leftist" like how a Stalinist may call others an "ultra-leftist"), but if she was addressing the actual radical left than she's laughably wasting her time.

She was, clearly, absolutely, speaking to a Radical audience. If you mean by; 'wasting her time', to indicate the futility of confronting many Radicals with facts, or logic, I absolutely agree. I have no illusions on that front, either.


I agree, strongly.

No argument, here.


Look, what I'm going to argue at this point is that in the end I don't really care if leftists en masse ended up voting for the Democrats because they think that it's the lesser of two evils and so on.

Again; this is a fact, not an opinion.


Hell, even I'm considering it (being a college student and all, Paul Ryan and co. want to fuck me over when it comes to Pell grants and student loans I depend on) although I can't be arsed enough to go register and vote. I don't really see this as a problem nor do I think it's an obligation for leftists and radical leftist organizations to tell people to not vote at all.

Seeing as you live in one of the swing states, one of the only states where the election hasn't already been decided, and, thus; have the ability to tilt this thing one way, or the other, I would strongly urge you to do so, especially if you live in Alan West's district.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No, that's not what she's saying. What she's saying is that those criticisms have to be understood in context, and acted upon in a rational way. Well I don't disagree with that in general - but specifically when it comes to the actual examples she gave in the article, I would also not see them as "half-victories" but actually the result of some empty pandering to their base by Democratic polticians. As an example, if the bosses fire half the workforce, but then decide to hire them back at 1/2 pay - this is not a half victory by itself. If the workers went on strike and were able to force the company to hire back some of the workers, then that would be at least a start, that would be a sort of mixed victory. It has nothing to do with the number of workers but on what terms this happened. If bosses hire and fire people, really workers are equally powerless in this process no matter if a good thing happens or a bad thing happens. If workers are able to organize and force companies to not fire people or to increase benifits or whatnot, then we have gained some power back through our own efforts.

In a similar way, if Democratic politicians offer a reform on their own in the absense of pressure from below, then most likely it will be a half-measure, probably with some kind of devils-bargin involved. For example they want to get rid of the death penalty in California... is this a half victory? Well when you look at the details, actually they want to put all death-row inmates into life-imprisonment instead (and they will loose their chance for appeals due to this) and they will be forced to work a job in prison with the money going to victim family groups. What's more is that they take the money from the budget that they claim eliminating the death penalty would save (since death row inmates have the chance to make appeals which is costly to the state) and give it to law enforcement which will end up with more young kids getting harassed and eventually arrested.

So as much as I want to see the death penalty ended, I can't see this as a "half-victory" any more than I can see spoiled meat as half-digestable.


To not choose the lesser evil, when given the choice, out of some misguided puritanical impulse, is to court the greater one. That never makes sense. To choose the lesser evil in a two party system like in the US is to move to the upper deck of the sinking Titanic. Choosing the lesser evil is not putting up any kind of opposition - we need to build an independant opposition, but how can we do that if every two years the opposition hault's it's independence in order to support the lesser evil? What are the implications: if you are fighting for LGBT rights but want to support the lesser-evil, this means shutting up and not making independant demands because you will end up hurting the "lesser evil". How dare those Chicago teachers help Romeny by striking in an election year! They should be out leafletting for Obama rather than embarassing the lesser-evil's croney in his own hometown!


Let's take this into the real world; over the last few years, as Solnit notes; we've seen a surprisingly intense assault on reproductive rights. Now; a number of the new provisions limiting access to abortion were not necessarily passed by ballot initiatives, however; the candidates that supported them, or passed them absolutely were elected, moreover; in most cases the candidates' extreme Pro-Life views were probably one of the main pillars of their campaign. As a result of doing nothing to defeat those proposed laws, or the candidates who supported them; abortion is significantly less accessible to many Americans than it was just a few years ago. Presuming we actually care about that, this 'principled abstention' flies directly in the face of the stated principles, and is remarkably stupid. No, let's zoom back for a minute. Who was President when Abortion was legalized - Nixon. Huh?! Why. Because people organized an opposition and movements that were not tailing the "Lesser Evil". All the gains of the 1960s and 1970s came because movements actually began to break with the feet-draging Democrats on Civil Rights and with the Vietnam bombing "peace candidate" LBJ.

People voted for LBJ, famously, because he claimed in Ads that his opponet would start war with the USSR. He sold himself as the "lesser-evil" and he was actually the only member of the Kennedy Admin who was against further involvement in Vietnam. The result of "lesser-evilism" in 1964? Victorious LBJ turned around and escalated the war immediately!

As for abortion specifically. Why did the Democrats ever support this to begin with. Because people had organized themselves and forced the issue to be adressed in the country. The general pro-abortion view at that time was that it was a matter of "women's control of her own body" and a health issue. But since the election of lesser-evil Bill Clinton, pro-abortion organizations have been tied to the Democratic Party, a party where their most prominent female politcian claims that we should find common ground with the anti-abortion right and recognize that abortion is horrible, it's just sometimes necissary.

And for the responce now to the anti-abortionists from the Democrats - well some lesser members of the party offered some humorous counter-bills requiring all men to get invasive tests done etc. That's funny, but it's also not an actual DEFENSE of abortion acess. In fact despite two Democratic Administrations since 1990, access to abortion is more limited today than in the 1980s with whole states where there are no real clinics.

Lesser-evilism as a strategy for the pro-abortion movement has been a disaster and now the movement on the streets around abortion rights looks like 50,000 people marching against Abortion in San Francisco each year on the anniversary of Roe V. Wade.

[ed miliband]

ngnm85 is the greatest anarchist thinker of his generation

[NGNM85]

Well I don't disagree with that in general - but specifically when it comes to the actual examples she gave in the article, I would also not see them as "half-victories" but actually the result of some empty pandering to their base by Democratic polticians. As an example, if the bosses fire half the workforce, but then decide to hire them back at 1/2 pay - this is not a half victory by itself. If the workers went on strike and were able to force the company to hire back some of the workers, then that would be at least a start, that would be a sort of mixed victory. It has nothing to do with the number of workers but on what terms this happened. If bosses hire and fire people, really workers are equally powerless in this process no matter if a good thing happens or a bad thing happens. If workers are able to organize and force companies to not fire people or to increase benifits or whatnot, then we have gained some power back through our own efforts.

Again; the problem with this is that it implies that defending the working class is only worthwhile when there is an immediate political return on that investment. I strongly disagree. We should always support, and defend the working class, etc.


In a similar way, if Democratic politicians offer a reform on their own in the absense of pressure from below, then most likely it will be a half-measure, probably with some kind of devils-bargin involved.

Nothing occurs in a vacuum. Also; I don't think this is universally true, and even if it was, that doesn't necessarily matter.


For example they want to get rid of the death penalty in California... is this a half victory? Well when you look at the details, actually they want to put all death-row inmates into life-imprisonment instead (and they will loose their chance for appeals due to this) and they will be forced to work a job in prison with the money going to victim family groups. What's more is that they take the money from the budget that they claim eliminating the death penalty would save (since death row inmates have the chance to make appeals which is costly to the state) and give it to law enforcement which will end up with more young kids getting harassed and eventually arrested. So as much as I want to see the death penalty ended, I can't see this as a "half-victory" any more than I can see spoiled meat as half-digestable.


That's an ethical decision that you have to make through the prism of your own morality. However; I still think it's an improvement.


To choose the lesser evil in a two party system like in the US is to move to the upper deck of the sinking Titanic. Choosing the lesser evil is not putting up any kind of opposition -

Not by itself, but nobody suggested that, quite the contrary, in fact.


we need to build an independant opposition, but how can we do that if every two years the opposition hault's it's independence in order to support the lesser evil?

That assumes that these two endeavors fundamentally anthetical,; they aren't. I mean, for the most part this is irrelevent because most of the Radical community has no interest in doing anything of the kind, in fact; many of them are adamantly opposed to it, and if such an event were to transpire in spite of them; they wouldn't vote for it, anyhow. Let's leave all that aside and presume we're actually serious about this. How would such a thing be accomplished? Well; first, you'd have to overturn Citizens' United, and instate public campaign financing, something along the lines proposed by Lawrence Lessig. The Democratic party is, overall, fairly supportive of this idea, I heard Nancy Pelosi say so, just the other day. Congressional Republicans (Who are, incidentally, responsible for appointing the Reactionaries that gave us this abomination.) minus an insignificant handful of exceptions defend this decision. More importantly; as I noted earlier, the American public absolutely hates it. 79% of registered Republicans think this thing sucks. So; that's a vast wellspring of public anger that could easily be tapped into, if anybody was interested in doing that. As I said, Lessig, and a few Occupiers tried to do something like that, but, as far as I can tell, this initiative was largely opposed, primarily by the Radicals.


What are the implications: if you are fighting for LGBT rights but want to support the lesser-evil, this means shutting up and not making independant demands because you will end up hurting the "lesser evil".
How dare those Chicago teachers help Romeny by striking in an election year! They should be out leafletting for Obama rather than embarassing the lesser-evil's croney in his own hometown!


Not necessarily. It just means that you have to put those demands in context. There really aren't any valid criticisms of the President that don't go double for the GOP. You think the President hasn't been strong enough on gay rights? Ok. Just don't gloss over the fact that his opposition want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, forever. Of course; that's almost assuredly not going to happen, but I don't see how getting a Rick Santorum,or whomever, elected really advances gay rights. I don't see how that's in any way conducive to making progress toward that goal.


No, let's zoom back for a minute. Who was President when Abortion was legalized - Nixon. Huh?! Why. Because people organized an opposition and movements that were not tailing the "Lesser Evil".

This is wrong on a number of levels. The matter was decided by the Supreme Court. The Presidents' sole involvement was to appoint three judges to the bench, all of whom, as it turns out, voted with the majority, along with two Democratic appointees; Thurgood Marshall, and William Douglas. It's also a mistake to draw such a close connection between the Pro-Choice movement and the judges' decision. I think the changing social attitudes prompted, in large part, by the Pro-Choice movement certainly had an effect, but only in that very general, and indirect way. It also bears mentioning that the Republican party of 1973 is not the Republican party of 2012. In years past, the Republican party supported unions, they didn't take any strong position, one way, or the other on abortion. The official platform for the convention this year stated in no uncertain terms that their party explicitly supported amending the constitution to ban abortion, perhaps with some minor exceptions, to be decided on the state level. Paul Ryan basically flat-out said, the other night, that, if given the opportunity, his administration would appoint judges with the hope of overturning Roe, and if he wins, that's definitely possible.


All the gains of the 1960s and 1970s came because movements actually began to break with the feet-draging Democrats on Civil Rights and with the Vietnam bombing "peace candidate" LBJ.

It should be mentioned that impressive gains were made through the Democratic party, in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. For example; (Lifelong Marxist, and self-identified Communist.) Asa Phillip Randolph pressured FDR into the Fair employment Act, and, later, Truman into signing Executive Order 9981, desegregating the army. His march on Washington, with his protege, Martin Luther King, (Also a Socialist, incidentally.) was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act 0f '64, and the Voting Rights Act of '65. Randolph, and Michael Harrington (Also a lifelong Marxist.) played a large role in inspiring the Great Society programs, as well as the ambitious Freedom Budget which was embraced by then-candidate Robert Kennedy, but, of course, he was asassinated, and Nixon thought the whole thing was bullshit, scoffing the idea of; 'spending millions on the poor.'


People voted for LBJ, famously, because he claimed in Ads that his opponet would start war with the USSR. He sold himself as the "lesser-evil" and he was actually the only member of the Kennedy Admin who was against further involvement in Vietnam. The result of "lesser-evilism" in 1964? Victorious LBJ turned around and escalated the war immediately!

Yes.


As for abortion specifically. Why did the Democrats ever support this to begin with. Because people had organized themselves and forced the issue to be adressed in the country. The general pro-abortion view at that time was that it was a matter of "women's control of her own body" and a health issue. But since the election of lesser-evil Bill Clinton, pro-abortion organizations have been tied to the Democratic Party, a party where their most prominent female politcian claims that we should find common ground with the anti-abortion right and recognize that abortion is horrible, it's just sometimes necissary.

That's a bad paraphrase. However; again, in simplest terms, the choice is between one party that is explicitly, and unequivocally in favor of protecting reproductive rights, and another which is equally explicitly against them. If Romney/Ryan get elected, they might very well get Roe overturned, I'm not being dramatic. It's a strong possibility.


And for the responce now to the anti-abortionists from the Democrats - well some lesser members of the party offered some humorous counter-bills requiring all men to get invasive tests done etc. That's funny, but it's also not an actual DEFENSE of abortion acess. In fact despite two Democratic Administrations since 1990, access to abortion is more limited today than in the 1980s with whole states where there are no real clinics.

I know. Solnit made that point, explicitly, so did I. Also; to be clear, that's almost entirely the result of state legislatures. Again; while not all of these restrictions on abortion were passed by ballot, I suspect most probably weren't, the politicians who introduced them, and supported them absolutely were, and, whats' more, they probably specifically campaigned on that agenda. This is the fruit of this; 'principled abstention. Congratulate yourselves.


Lesser-evilism as a strategy for the pro-abortion movement has been a disaster and now the movement on the streets around abortion rights looks like 50,000 people marching against Abortion in San Francisco each year on the anniversary of Roe V. Wade.

This has very little relationship to reality.

Those restrictions were introduced by Republicans, most of whom campaigned specifically on that agenda, that the Radical Left wasn't interested in opposing.

Again; how do you advance reproductive rights by voting for, or not voting against (Which is the same thing, if you live in a swing state.) a ticket that very explicitly supports banning abortion, and may very possibly be able to do so? How is that productive? How is that smart?

[NGNM85]

ngnm85 is the greatest anarchist thinker of his generation

It's abundantly clear that comments such as these are purely intended to antagonize me. Presuming you were actually serious, for a moment however, your implication, that participating in parliamentary politics is fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism is totally bogus. I fairly sure even you understand that much. If you really want to shock me; you should try saying something intelligent.

[NGNM85]

I would also ask that whomever it was (And I have a fairly good idea.) that negged this comment, on page one;

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2516431&postcount=14

display the courage of their convictions, and identify themselves, as well as to specifically indicate what it was they disagreed with, if, in truth, they actually did disagree, which I'm not convinced of.

[#FF0000]

your implication, that participating in parliamentary politics is fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism is totally bogus

http://i.imgur.com/94Np8.gif

[Raúl Duke]

It's by no means clear what her specific ideology is. Somewhere between Progressive, and Radical, it's never explicitly stated, more to the point; it's irrelevent.

It is relevant because it's important to know what the intended audience is for her article. I believe her use of "radical" is similar to how Stalinists use the term "ultra-leftist" except targeted at progressives who lately have been skittish about Obama. Her article seems to use progressives to make an argument; it also doesn't target specifically the left-wing criticism of voting but instead targets a liberal/progressive/activist criticism of voting (particularly for voting for a mainstream party/politician).


She was, clearly, absolutely, speaking to a Radical audience.

No she was not. If she was, this would be published in libcom, infoshop, or some socialist (weekly worker? IDK) publication rather than truthdig which is a progressive publication like say alternet. Sure, some activists might read it. I'll even say that one can make arguments about the left's anti-voting (or anti-voting mainstream party; some people here vote 3rd parties) but if you wanted that you should have made your own arguments rather than relying on some article that targets mostly skittish disillusioned progressives and/or run of the mill activists.


Nor does participating in the political process require you to adopt any illusions. The working class will be objectively better off with Elizabeth Warren in the Senate, than Scott Brown, just as they, especially minority youths, will be better off with Cannabis being legal, as opposed to illegal.

I'm not against this line of thinking, nor am I against the line of thinking that it's a waste of time. Personally, I'm of the line of thinking that we need to re-think the left's/activist's tactics since they're seemingly not working however giving mainstream political endorsements/etc doesn't really advance our desire for revolution nor a move that will help the left at all (hell, it may be detrimental; it could make left organizations end up like the CPUSA).


Seeing as you live in one of the swing states, one of the only states where the election hasn't already been decided, and, thus; have the ability to tilt this thing one way, or the other, I would strongly urge you to do so, especially if you live in Alan West's district.

My district isn't a swing district and Alan West I believe is more of a West Palm/Collier politician. (I'm in Lee, we got Connie Mack, Nelson, etc). If I live in the east coast (Dade, Broward, West Palm), Tampa, or Orlando I might have considered voting; yet nevertheless I know that it ain't radical politics and I hope no serious self-described radical political organization engages in the practice of endorsing politicians/mainstream parties or any electioneering.


You can't be a Radical and have non-Radical politics. For example; I emphatically support gay rights, and so do Liberals, however; that does not mean that support for gay rights isn't fundamental to Radicalism, only that it isn't exclusive to Radicalism.

I feel that argument is a semantic game. Sure, gay rights is a part of what the radical left wants but since it isn't exclusive to radicalism it isn't exactly "radical politics." Voting for politician isn't exactly "radical politics," it doesn't advance the desire to empower the working class, etc.

[MarxSchmarx]

The ruling oligarchs in America have largely concluded that their future lies with an imperfect vehicle like the Republican party for establishing their neo-feudalism. Despite all protestations by (I guess) the people Solnit targets that there isn't any substantive difference between the two parties, the ruling class is betting heavily on one and trying its best to turn the other into essentially a junior coalition partner, succeeding here and there. I'm not sure how you are reaching these conclusions. For one thing most US cities are controlled by the Democratic Party - my own town, San Francisco, Chicago, probably haven't had any sizable Republican influence for decades. So that would seem like a problem for a plan to have Republican control when the major population centers and centers of many industries are in areas basically controlled by Democratic Party machines.

Second, from what I've seen in the mainstream press, Obama has recieved MORE contributions - record breaking in fact - than Romney. Since there are in the 400 and 300 million dollar rage respectivly, I doubt that the bulk of that is personal contributions from workers and petty-bourgoise supporters for the most part.

The problem is that in America municipal politics play a very minor role compared to state or federal politics. Look at states like Texas. Heavily Democratic Houston, South Texas, Dallas and Austin have done shit all to make that state remotely livable for anybody even in these horrifically lame supposed "bastions of liberalism". Why? Because the 50%+1 in the rest of the state have done a terrific job creating their reactionary wet dream through fiat. The American right-wing wants the same thing for the rest of the country and they have largely succeeded.

As to the money, sure, the center left raises a lot of money; you are correct it's not "personal contributions" of "worker supporters" but union money is actually big part of that. And the bourgeoisie isn't united on this front. Some industries, notoriously the film industry but also industries like high tech ones, do have a tendency to support the center-left in different countries. But they are the exception. In the American context, the ruling class invests heavily in the Republican Party, at the presidential level:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/08/28/Wall-Street-Gives-Up-on-Obama-and-Roots-for-Romney.aspx

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/09/wall-street-showers-romney-campaign-with-donations-abandons-obama.html

but also at other political levels:

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/alec-the-voice-of-corporate-special-interests-state-legislatures

Moreover, the situation is similar in other democracies where corporations are given a lot of power.

In Mexico, the basically reformist PRD has famously struggled against the huge influx of corporate support for the opposition.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/whats-happening-mexican-elections-explained

The role of the business community in historically propping up the LDP in Japan is quite well documented:

http://www.sfu.ca/~kawasaki/Crespo.pdf

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/296/the-liberal-democratic-party-in-japan-explaining-the-partys-ability-to-dominate-japanese-politics

Elsewhere the situation is more mild, because the business community can only give limited support as political contributions are severely curtailed and moreso those by corporations. Here the assessment is more indirect - the ruling class press (e.g., the Economist) is quite vocal about their preferences for the center-right.

But even in Canada, which is probably the most corporate friendly of the industrialized liberal democracies outside of America and Japan that still retains a heavy restriction on private funding of elections, there is a tendency towards corporate groups heavily favoring the donations of the ruling right-wing party:

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/2012/01/10/enbridge-and-politics-oil-money-campaign-trail

In short, as an overall trend, it is hard to deny the rather strong support the ruling class in liberal democracies give to the "center-right" party over the "center-left" party. There may be exceptions, such as Red Ken or the Democratic powerhouses of San Francisco or the ability of Socialists in France to consistently control Paris. But they are aberrations, and when their power seems to extends nationally or even regionally (as in Texas) the reactionaries and their ruling class patrons find a way to come down hard.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

'Dear Allies,
Forgive me if I briefly take my eyes off the prize to brush away some flies, but the buzzing has gone on for some time.

Yes, the buzz of liberal reformism via investing in the Democrat party.


I have a grand goal, and that is to counter the Republican right with its deep desire to annihilate everything I love and to move toward far more radical goals than the Democrats ever truly support.

Obama has already annihilated more public programs and services than Bush and Reagan


In the course of pursuing that, however, I’ve come up against the habits of my presumed allies again and again.

Because actual socialists have seen the uslessness of this sort of sycophantic apologist position for generations.



O rancid sector of the far left, please stop your grousing!

Who are these people, the rancid sector of the far left? If the person is refering to revoloutionary sociaists I'll write a long response but I feel like it's a generic critisizm of the generic left with the same old generic cries for supporting reformism via a vote for a capitalist politician. Newsflash - Obama is more right wing than Bush and Reagan.


Obama is more right wing than Bush and Reagan. The OP of this blog is also "grateful" for "Obamacare". Where do I start? Is the poster of this thread also "grateful" for the new healthcare law? If so I have to ask, what sort of socialist are you?


No more excuses please. No more investing in the Democrat party. Please stop.

EDIT: look , even liberals and progressives get it. OP, why don't you get it?

http://vimeo.com/20355767

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

'Dear Allies,
Forgive me...

And in short.........http://paganmediabytes.com/truthmedia3/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/vote-obama-2012.png

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not necessarily. It just means that you have to put those demands in context. There really aren't any valid criticisms of the President that don't go double for the GOP. You think the President hasn't been strong enough on gay rights? Ok. Just don't gloss over the fact that his opposition want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, forever. Of course; that's almost assuredly not going to happen, but I don't see how getting a Rick Santorum,or whomever, elected really advances gay rights. I don't see how that's in any way conducive to making progress toward that goal.Your arguments are simply lesser-evilism. Yes Santorum is terrible, but the problem with the "lesser evil" is that simply "not being terrible" doesn't actually put up any kind of opposition.

But the main problem with the Democracts these days isn't even that they refuse to put up an opposition - because often they are leading a parallel charge to that of the Republicans. Regan was terrible, but Clinton actually got more Regan-type things passed than Regan was able to! Clinton put the "Defense of Marriage Act" into law, made 30-strikes laws the law of the land, increased the ability of the federal government to exaccute people, got rid of welfare, got rid of any public assistance for anyone conviceted on drug charges, and fought to legitimize US military intervention in the post-cold war era. Clinton was actually a greater-evil than Regan in terms of neoliberalism and US imperialism.

The problems with lesser-evilism as a strategy, is that it leaves us defensless against the government and dependant on capitalist allies in the Democratic party. When there are two parties, there's always going to be a greater or lesser, evil so in this strategy, there is simply no way out - we will always have to vote for some crappy person who may not be as crappy as their opponent.

I think we need to break from that and develop independant movements and perhaps parties that actually fight for class interests, rather than just occasionally pander to voting workers.


It's also a mistake to draw such a close connection between the Pro-Choice movement and the judges' decision. I think the changing social attitudes prompted, in large part, by the Pro-Choice movement certainly had an effect, but only in that very general, and indirect way.Yes, this is what I am arguing for - an independant movement. If we tie ourselves to the Democrats, then we will be told not to make a big issue of abortion because then the pro-life nuts will mobilize and Romney/Bush/Palin will win!


That's a bad paraphrase. However; again, in simplest terms, the choice is between one party that is explicitly, and unequivocally in favor of protecting reproductive rights, and another which is equally explicitly against them. If Romney/Ryan get elected, they might very well get Roe overturned, I'm not being dramatic. It's a strong possibility. The Democrats are far from unequivocally for abortion - Hilary Clinton called for Democratic Party supporters to have understanding and find common ground with pro-lifers, and to recognize that abortion is a tragety.



Again; how do you advance reproductive rights by voting for, or not voting against (Which is the same thing, if you live in a swing state.) a ticket that very explicitly supports banning abortion, and may very possibly be able to do so? How is that productive? How is that smart?It is smart to organize yourself and to create an independant opposition that will actually fight for an issue, rather than to rely on people in a party that doesn't fight for abortion rights and has been in power for most of the time that these rights have been gutted.

This is how these rights were won in the first place, this is part of how the anti-abortion forces have become strong, and this is what has not been happeing for decades and lo, the rights are not being upheld or defended let alone expanded.

[ed miliband]

It's abundantly clear that comments such as these are purely intended to antagonize me. Presuming you were actually serious, for a moment however, your implication, that participating in parliamentary politics is fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism is totally bogus. I fairly sure even you understand that much. If you really want to shock me; you should try saying something intelligent.

i'd be offended if you hadn't previously used exactly the same insult before. it's like you're little, 'i'm actually more radical marx, the mature marx of capital at least' spiel -- do you have this shit copied out in a word doc?

[Manic Impressive]

This isn't anything new. Impossibilism or whatever you want to call it; radical left sectarianism etc is developing into a chic lifestyle and political alignment, and has been for some while. I mean shit I consider most of the people who post on this website in this category of armchair scholars and internet revolutionists, with unrealistic expectations about genuine advocacy for left ideals put into practice(wages, rights etc) because they are most interested in romanticizing ideological contentment than applying their radical analysis of capitalism into concrete practice and positive change
Impossiblism as a chic lifestyle? :lol::lol::lol: I wish

Seriously though do you consider yourself a possibilist?

[NGNM85]

i'd be offended

You don't get to be offended. You can't start fights with people and cry foul when they take you up on it. That's exactly the response you deserve. If you could behave like a civilized adult; you wouldn't get that kind of response.


if you hadn't previously used exactly the same insult before.

I don't recall, but that's probably true. It doesn't matter.


it's like you're little, 'i'm actually more radical marx, the mature marx of capital at least' spiel --

That's a bad paraphrase. I'll speak for myself, thanks. However; incidentally, that is a strong point, that contrary to what is sometimes said, I'm actually further from 'reformism' than Marx was, but this is also irrlevent.


do you have this shit copied out in a word doc?

No, it's just in my head. Since you brought it up; you could also ask why people insist on confronting me with the same stupid questions, and the same stupid arguments.

[NGNM85]

Yes, the buzz of liberal reformism via investing in the Democrat party.

Negative. Niether Miss Solnit's remarks, nor my own qualify as; 'Reformism', of any kind. Incidentally; 'Liberal 'Reformism'' is an oxymoron. 'Reformism', at least in this context, refers exclusively to Radicals who believe Socialism can be acheived through the parliamentary process, I don't. I'm actually further from this position than Marx, who, incidentally, was no abstentionist. Niether was Lenin, BTW.


Obama has already annihilated more public programs and services than Bush and Reagan

You're just making that up.


Because actual socialists have seen the uslessness of this sort of sycophantic apologist position for generations.

There's nothing; 'sycophantic', or 'apologistic' about the article, provided you understood it. (Clearly; you did not.) Earlier generations used the existing political mechanisms to make significant gains for the working class, and minorities, or socially marginalized groups. Of course, as Miss Solnit points out, this malaise prevents you from being able to recognize, or appreciate these accomplishments.


Who are these people, the rancid sector of the far left? If the person is refering to revoloutionary sociaists I'll write a long response but I feel like it's a generic critisizm of the generic left with the same old generic cries for supporting reformism via a vote for a capitalist politician.

Miss Solnit is very clearly, and ver presciently commenting on the pathology of the Radical Left, hence the thread title.

Again; no-one has endorsed 'Reformism', at least, not so far.

First; a vote for a 'capitalist politician', or, in actuality; a 'Bourgeois' politician, is fundamentally different from voting for capitalism, or for 'Bourgeois rule', niether of which is even an option, although it makes little difference, as most of these people wouldn't vote if it was.


Newsflash - Obama is more right wing than Bush and Reagan.

In some respects; yes, in others; no. What matters, at this moment, is that he is less Right wing than Mitt Romney. That's what matters, now. Although, again; this only matters in any kind of personal way if you happen to live in a swing state.


Obama is more right wing than Bush and Reagan.

In some respects; yes, in others; no. What matters, at this moment, is that he is less Right wing than Mitt Romney.


The OP of this blog is also "grateful" for "Obamacare". Where do I start? Is the poster of this thread also "grateful" for the new healthcare law? If so I have to ask, what sort of socialist are you?

First; we need to understand the context. Miss Solnit was clearly not expressing uncritical adoration of the administration, (Which wouldn't even make sense.) she's actually very critical. What she meant was that of the two possibilities; the AFCA passing, or not passing, she's glad it passed. No consistent Socialist can say they'd prefer 36 million Americans, overwhelmingly working class Americans, did not have health insurance. That's not touching the other provisions like; free contraceptions, free preventative care like colonoscopies and mammograms, an end to denial or cancellation of coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions, etc., etc. If you're against that, I'd have to ask you the same question. In truth; I'm pretty sure that isn't what you want. I suspect you believe that healthcare is a basic human right, and should be availible to everyone who needs it, so do I. I suspect your ideal society is something like the 'Participatory Society' envisioned by Michael Albert, and Stephen Shalom, or like Marx's brief sketch of the; 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', some kind of decentralized, democratic, egalitarian, communistic type of society. Again; I couldn't agree more. The problem, however, is that you, and, to be fair, you're by no means alone in this, have this idealistic, puritanical commitment to this utopian vision that you absolutely refuse to settle for anything less. Reality inevitably falls short of your ideals, so you oppose any form of incrementalism as tantamount to ideological treason. Therefore; you will either oppose, or refuse to support, for example, the AFCA, even at the cost of 36 million Americans losing their health insurance. I don't think you're a secret Right-winger, although, in practice, the result is about the same, I just think you're dangerously misguided, and this error in judgment is leading you to make very poor judgments. This is the most destructive force plaguing the Radical Left, today, and it's precisely what this thread is about.


No more excuses please. No more investing in the Democrat party. Please stop.

No-one's making excuses for anything. No-one is asking you to operate under any illusions.

It isn't clear what; 'investing' means, in this context. I'm not suggesting anyone make any financial contributions, nor am I asking anyone to internalize any illusions.


And in short......... http://paganmediabytes.com/truthmedia3/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/vote-obama-2012.png

I only suggested voting for the President if you live in one of the six swing states, if you don't; you're vote has no bearing on who becomes the next President.

FYI; I can't watch the video, right now. I'll probably watch it later, then I can give you an informed response. I can't evaluate it until I've seen it.

[Zanthorus]

I don't really care that much about this debate, primarily because it is clear that at the present time NGNM85 is not really thinking in any kind of direction that might lead him to change his opinion. But I would like to reply to a couple of assertions made about Marx. I predict that NGNM85 will just turn around and say that he doesn't care what Marx 'really' thought, because he's not a dogmatist like me, I'm just another silly ideological/textual purist with no relation to the working-class and all the other epithets we've heard before, but I think these are worth mentioning.


For example; he understood that both classes benefitted from the 10 Hours Law, he supported it because it was a boon to the working class. He wasn't willing to stab the working class in the eye just to spite the elites.

You have perverted Marx's analysis of the English factory acts here. The chapter on the working-day comes after the chapters explaining the production of absolute surplus-value through the extension of the working-day, and the consequent struggle between classes over it's length. His analysis relies on his exposition of the internal laws of motion of capitalist society, and on the relative strength of the various classes. It is not a case of giving a moral exposition of the value of the factory acts 'well on the one hand, then on the other', but of giving a proper analysis and explanation. You are probably incapable of seeing this because on the one hand you probably haven't read Das Kapital properly anyway, but also because you conceive politics in terms of reasoned choices made by enlightened individuals like yourself, which you believe can be impacted by making arguments such as those you make here about supporting Obama in the upcoming election. Marx manifestly did not see things in this way.


Historically radicals have not been categorically opposed to political participation; Marx absolutely wasn't, Lenin wasn't, etc., etc.There is political participation, and then there is political participation. Marx (And Engels) believed that every class struggle was a political struggle, he also believed that as a consequence the working-class would by necessity have to form itself into an independent class party, a union of the class, he did not believe in the value of convincing enlightened activists to vote for one or another candidate in order to validate his own sense of self-importance.

[Raúl Duke]

'Liberal 'Reformism'' is an oxymoron.

<facepalm>
Was FDR a radical than?
The ruling class has, or perhaps better said had, uses for reformism.

To improve conditions so to prevent unrest/upheaval/revolution.


Earlier generations used the existing political mechanisms to make significant gains for the working class, and minorities, or socially marginalized groups.

Sure, but the real question is: is the age of reformism (as it relates to labor & social programs, not civil rights there's still arguably hope for that via reformism) long dead?
Outside of the unique health care law, which isn't really much of an improvement relative to say Canadian health care and is more or less an expansion of Romney's MassHealth program plus a boon for health insurance companies...

There's little to no talk about new reforms or concrete new actions (a jobs program, regulation of banks, increase capital gains tax, whatever). A lot of what's taking place is either defensive in nature (i.e. Dem party to defend xyz reform like say medicare, social security, new health care etc) or in retreat by matters of degrees (i.e. Republicans desire to cut Education/let it become more expensive perhaps. Democrats however are also letting it becoming more expensive, but either through inaction or weak resistance slowly relative to Republican's plans).


I only suggested voting for the President if you live in one of the six swing states

Face it, you're an advocate for "lesser evil" voting. No need to be ashamed, but to be honest; why are you advocating that here on revleft a site dedicated to talking about revolutionary politics? Radicals make (and will perhaps always make 'till perhaps the revolution starts or so) a minority of the population, even if they vote as a block I highly doubt it matters at all. As radicals, there's no reason to vote particularly no reason to vote any evil, whether "greater" or "lesser." Some on here however will also consider, aside from being a radical, their interests as a worker and/or student and will vote. Not sure why you getting all huffy about this as if it was serious kind of deal; revleft will not make a difference in the election even if all the eligible American members voted for Obama.

But in the end of the day, voting has nothing at all to do with revolutionary, radical politics. nothing. nada. nope. Marx may have been a reformist or not, but so what? We're not living in 1870s.

[NGNM85]

It is relevant because it's important to know what the intended audience is for her article. I believe her use of "radical" is similar to how Stalinists use the term "ultra-leftist" except targeted at progressives who lately have been skittish about Obama. Her article seems to use progressives to make an argument; it also doesn't target specifically the left-wing criticism of voting but instead targets a liberal/progressive/activist criticism of voting (particularly for voting for a mainstream party/politician).

There's no way that you can read the article, understand it, and not conclude it was written for a Radical (In the literal sense.) audience. It's abundantly clear.


No she was not.

Again; this is not art criticism. It isn't subjective.


If she was, this would be published in libcom, infoshop, or some socialist (weekly worker? IDK) publication rather than truthdig which is a progressive publication like say alternet. Sure, some activists might read it.

Actually it was initially published on TomDispatch, which is a far-Left-to-Radical-but-not-explicitly-ideological news aggregator. You can finds links to moderate Left, or Liberal sites, as well as Radical sites like ZNET, or Counterpunch. They publish a lot of Chomsky pieces. It's primarily concerned with foreign policy/international relations. It was probably published on truthdig because she regularly writes for truthdig. From the response when Chris Hedges had the audacity to criticize the Black Blocers, I'd say truthdig is fairly well known to the Radical Left.


I'll even say that one can make arguments about the left's anti-voting (or anti-voting mainstream party; some people here vote 3rd parties) but if you wanted that you should have made your own arguments rather than relying on some article that targets mostly skittish disillusioned progressives and/or run of the mill activists.

Again; the article was clearly aimed at a Radical (In the literal sense.) audience.

Also; there's nothing wrong, or cowardly about posting an article you happen to agree with. It's a common practice, here. I've also been more than generous in terms of elaborating.

All of this is a distraction. I want to talk about the issues, here. I'd ideally like to have a substantive conversation, although, admittedly, I'm extremely skeptical about that.


I'm not against this line of thinking, nor am I against the line of thinking that it's a waste of time.

I don't see how you can have no position, but...whatever. That's fine.. A clean slate is a good place to start.


Personally, I'm of the line of thinking that we need to re-think the left's/activist's tactics since they're seemingly not working

That's an understatement.


however giving mainstream political endorsements/etc doesn't really advance our desire for revolution nor a move that will help the left at all (hell, it may be detrimental; it could make left organizations end up like the CPUSA).

It isn't clear what you mean by an; 'endorsement.' What I'm saying is that if you live in one of the six swing states; you should vote for the President, without illusions, in the context of a broader point that the Radical Left should be (In fact; we must.) participating in the political system. That's the most fundamental point.

Whether or not participating in politics is productive depends on the circumstances. However; simply not participating changes absolutely nothing. I would propose the following; that being a Socialist means universally, and unconditionally supporting, and defending the working class, and marginalized groups, or oppressed minorities. (LGBT, women, ethnic minorities, etc.) That has to be paramount. Nothing ever can, or should come before that, politically.

Second; it's impossible to build a broad revolutionary movement of any size without knocking down the institutional barriers that marginalize, or disenfranchise various strata of the population, and devide the working class. (Again; women, gays, etc.)

Third; it is simply impossible to build such a movement if we refuse to address the pressing issues that affect the daily lives of the working class, if we fail to do this; we are irrelevent to the working class. (That's pretty much where we're at, right now.)

Finally; the idea of revolution will only gain mass acceptance when the working class, or a sufficiently large segment, thereof, and their allies, have achived a certain level of awareness, organized, and pursued their interests, as a class, and been frustrated in this capacity by the structural limitations of the ruling institutions. There's simply no other way.



My district isn't a swing district and Alan West I believe is more of a West Palm/Collier politician.

Too bad. That guy's a major asshole, even in the spectrum of American politics.

Granted. However; you do live in a swing state. Unlike the overwhelming majority of the US population, your vote, for the Presidential ticket, actually matters. Also; in case you aren't aware, there are a number of ballot initiatives you should be interested in, like Amendment 6; which prohibits public funds for abortion.



(I'm in Lee, we got Connie Mack, Nelson, etc). If I live in the east coast (Dade, Broward, West Palm), Tampa, or Orlando I might have considered voting; yet nevertheless I know that it ain't radical politics and I hope no serious self-described radical political organization engages in the practice of endorsing politicians/mainstream parties or any electioneering.

I feel that argument is a semantic game. Sure, gay rights is a part of what the radical left wants but since it isn't exclusive to radicalism it isn't exactly "radical politics." Voting for politician isn't exactly "radical politics," it doesn't advance the desire to empower the working class, etc.

Again; I have no idea what you mean by; 'endorsement.'

I don't think it's semantics. Again; just because supporting gay rights isn't exclusive to Socialism, doesn't mean that supporting gay rights isn't fundamental to Socialism. It depends on the motivation. Liberals also support gay rights for the same ethical reasons as any Socialist, which are the primary reasons. However; as a Socialist, you also support gay rights because these structural impediments that marginalize various minority groups, etc., divide, and disempower the working class. This is what separates the two. So; if you're voting for the best out of the range of possible candidates, or proposed laws that are of most benefit to the working class; that's Radical politics. Again; a Radical can't have any other kind of politics.

[Zanthorus]

They publish a lot of Chomsky pieces.

Wow, you don't say.

[Ocean Seal]

Dear liberals,
I often hear of this Republican agenda to destroy what I know and love. Can someone explain to me what this Republican agenda is? And how is it different from the Democratic agenda?

Also why do you need to preach to me and my small band of folks about voting for a guy who will most likely win anyway.

[NGNM85]

<facepalm>
Was FDR a radical than?
The ruling class has, or perhaps better said had, uses for reformism.

To improve conditions so to prevent unrest/upheaval/revolution.

Again; 'Reformism refers exclusively to Socialists who advocate that Socialism can be achieved via parliamentary means. FDR was not a Socialist, nor was he trying to acheive Socialism.


<Sure, but the real question is: is the age of reformism (as it relates to labor & social programs, not civil rights there's still arguably hope for that via reformism) long dead?

See above.


<Outside of the unique health care law, which isn't really much of an improvement relative to say Canadian health care and is more or less an expansion of Romney's MassHealth program plus a boon for health insurance companies...

Part of the reason for this is the fact that the Democrats lacked a supermajority in Congress. There's the myth floating around that the President had a two year supermajority, but in actuality it only works out to a couple of months, with a gap in-between. The public option passed in the House. If they'd had the votes in the Senate; it might've happened. I also should point out the irony of complaining about the outcome when the Radical Left did not see any reason to participate in the healthcare debacle. It was criminally negligent. I mean; this was possibly the most important single issue to the working class. It's unbelievable. Anyway; that's the way it stands. What you have to decide is do you care if 36 million Americans lose their health insurance, and all the other provisions like ending preexisting conditions, ending lifetime limits, free preventative care, free contraception, etc.? I don't see how any consistent Socialist could not care.


<There's little to no talk about new reforms or concrete new actions (a jobs program, regulation of banks, increase capital gains tax, whatever). A lot of what's taking place is either defensive in nature (i.e. Dem party to defend xyz reform like say medicare, social security, new health care etc) or in retreat by matters of degrees (i.e. Republicans desire to cut Education/let it become more expensive perhaps. Democrats however are also letting it becoming more expensive, but either through inaction or weak resistance slowly relative to Republican's plans).

There's other things, like; abortion, the Supreme Court, etc.

What you need to see is that we should be defending that, in fact, we must. A Socialist, by definition, cares about the working class. This is one of the most fundamental sufficient conditions by which one can be determined to be a Socialist. What does it mean to say you care about someone? First; you don't hurt them. Second; you protect them, to the extent you can. Third; you ameliorate whatever suffering you can't protect them from. So, a Socialist, then, should empower the working class whenever possible, defend the working class when necessary, and ameliorate the harm suffered by the working class, when all else fails. That's consistent. That's the only consistent approach.


<Face it, you're an advocate for "lesser evil" voting. No need to be ashamed,

Not only am I not ashamed, I've actually specifically used that phrase several times.

Actually, I'm arguing for voting, in general. However; as we don't have any perfect options, I'll take the best of the availible possibilities.

Finally; again, you missrepresent the facts by using the phrase as if I'm espousing some doctrine, or school of thought. This is not an opinion. Again; given a limited set of choices, it never makes sense to choose the worst choice, or to abstain, and risk the worst outcome, by inaction. You don't have to take my word for it. It simply doesn't exist. The debate, here, to the limited extent that any such thing is taking place revolves around the facts of American politics, today, which are very poorly understood.


<but to be honest; why are you advocating that here on revleft a site dedicated to talking about revolutionary politics?

For several reasons, first; because this pathology is, I would argue, the most destructive force facing the Radical Left today, it's the biggest obstacle, and that's something I happen to care about. I'm deeply disturbed by it.

Second; again; revolution is impossible without addressing the issues that confront the working class, and the structural barriers that devide the working class, and revolution will only gain mass acceptance once a significantly large proportion of the working class have become aware, and have been frustrated in the pursuit of their class interests by the limits of the prevailing institutions. Without these prerequisites; revolution cannot exist. It's impossible.

Third; as I've explained; I'm talking about Radical politics. Beyond the fact that it's basic, fundamental logic, this has a long history in Radical thought. Marx was not an abstentionist. Niether was Lenin. Go down the list; Asa Phillip Randolph, Michael Harrington, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc., etc.


<Radicals make (and will perhaps always make 'till perhaps the revolution starts or so) a minority of the population, even if they vote as a block I highly doubt it matters at all.

It's not just a matter of the Radical community, itself, but the people it could, potentially, be turning out, which is substantially greater than the percentage of the rank and file, so the influence is somewhat greater. Presently; the Radical Left's stance is havinga counterproductive effect, not only not participating, but depressing participation, and promoting apathy, and inaction. Second; it matters because any malfunction in the practice, or error in judgment, obviously, hampers the effectiveness of the Radical Left. If we're doing the wrong things, or not doing the right things, or not properly understanding things, etc., this dramatically reduces the probability of success.


<As radicals, there's no reason to vote particularly no reason to vote any evil, whether "greater" or "lesser."

That's completely wrong. If you care about the working class; than, again, you can't be indifferent. Nonparticipation is not an option. You might not always be able to make a difference, but to categorically abstain is fundamentally antithetical to Radicalism.


<Some on here however will also consider, aside from being a radical, their interests as a worker and/or student and will vote.

Except that makes no sense, because it's in the interests of workers, and students, especially, to be voting, because they have the most to lose.


<Not sure why you getting all huffy about this as if it was serious kind of deal;

It's a huge deal because, as I said; this; ultra-Radicalism, this; 'impossibilism' is the greatest obstacle facing the Radical Left, today. Nothing could be more serious.


<revleft will not make a difference in the election even if all the eligible American members voted for Obama.

See above.


<But in the end of the day, voting has nothing at all to do with revolutionary, radical politics. nothing. nada. nope.

It has everything to do with Radical politics. How do you make a Revolution without defending the working class, or addressing the issues that affect the working class? Do you expect welfare mothers will be impressed by your sparkling oratory, and your command of obscure Socialist literature? Absolutely not. They want healthcare. They want contraceptives. They want to be able to feed their kids. They want access to abortion. If you are disengaged from those things; you're completely irrelevent to them.


<Marx may have been a reformist or not, but so what? We're not living in 1870s.

Well; for one thing, very clearly, much of this community take what Marx said very seriously. (Too seriously, sometimes, I think.) I mean, to a lot of people it's fucking scripture. I also didn't say; 'Marx was a 'Reformist.' Marx was not a 'Reformist.' However; he was, incidentally, actually closer to this position than I am.

The time period isn't especially relevent, in this case.

[La Comédie Noire]

What is the pathology of the radical left? An insane scholasticism that compels them to argue inane points of theory, so they may be blessedly consistent. While not realizing, all the while growing movements are inconsistent, simply because they grow so fast.

[Guayaco]

The sophistry of the philistine Rebecca Solnit has been completely smashed on counterpunch:

counterpunch.org/2012/09/28/shut-up-and-vote-obama/

counterpunch.org/2012/10/01/hypocrite-narcissist-explains-things-to-the-raging-rancid-left/

counterpunch.org/2012/10/04/prozac-politics-and-the-death-of-ethics/

(I can't post links until I have reached 25 posts)

[MarxSchmarx]

<facepalm>
Was FDR a radical than?
The ruling class has, or perhaps better said had, uses for reformism.

To improve conditions so to prevent unrest/upheaval/revolution.



Sure, but the real question is: is the age of reformism (as it relates to labor & social programs, not civil rights there's still arguably hope for that via reformism) long dead?
Outside of the unique health care law, which isn't really much of an improvement relative to say Canadian health care and is more or less an expansion of Romney's MassHealth program plus a boon for health insurance companies...

There's little to no talk about new reforms or concrete new actions (a jobs program, regulation of banks, increase capital gains tax, whatever). A lot of what's taking place is either defensive in nature (i.e. Dem party to defend xyz reform like say medicare, social security, new health care etc) or in retreat by matters of degrees (i.e. Republicans desire to cut Education/let it become more expensive perhaps. Democrats however are also letting it becoming more expensive, but either through inaction or weak resistance slowly relative to Republican's plans).



Face it, you're an advocate for "lesser evil" voting. No need to be ashamed, but to be honest; why are you advocating that here on revleft a site dedicated to talking about revolutionary politics? Radicals make (and will perhaps always make 'till perhaps the revolution starts or so) a minority of the population, even if they vote as a block I highly doubt it matters at all. As radicals, there's no reason to vote particularly no reason to vote any evil, whether "greater" or "lesser." Some on here however will also consider, aside from being a radical, their interests as a worker and/or student and will vote. Not sure why you getting all huffy about this as if it was serious kind of deal; revleft will not make a difference in the election even if all the eligible American members voted for Obama.

But in the end of the day, voting has nothing at all to do with revolutionary, radical politics. nothing. nada. nope. Marx may have been a reformist or not, but so what? We're not living in 1870s.

You raise good points, Raul Duke.

My response perhaps betrays my DeLeonist outlook - the role of politics is to serve as a shield that prevents, or at least mitigates, the full brunt of the capitalist state from neutralizing the sword that is the economic struggle.

Still, I do wonder if going after lesser-evilism is a wise tactic. After all, there are some sociological surveys that suggest that in places like America, a large majority of "liberal" view socialism more favorably than capitalism. I have no reason to believe the situation is much different in other countries like France where "lesser evil" calculations are routine in voting.

Having said that, one other area where "less evilism" still has some merit in my view is in the field of civil rights.

It's hard to generalize, but taken case by case the evidence is pretty compelling

In an American context, this may seem particularly unpersuasive. But that is because "lesser evilism" is precisely that - an evil.

Extraordinary renditions, indefinite detention, summary executions, ... the Obama crowd in America seems little perturbed by these. This belies their claims to be in favor civil liberties etc..

However, one has to understand that civil liberties in America generally focus exclusively in the form of the influence of the presidency and legislature on the judiciary. It is true that on issues of extra-judicial activities the American Democrats are no better than the Republicans. But on issues like appointing (particularly appallate) judges and going after ethnic or other minorities via the criminal justice system, Democrats are indeed "lesser". That still seems to me something worth fighting for.

This dynamic isn't unique to America, however. From France to Australia the center right has been vehement in its xenophobia and authoritarianism. By contrast, in Canada the center-left often allies with the civil libertarians and in Japan the center-left DPJ has generally been more friendly to civil rights issues like letting 3rd generation Koreans vote in local elections than the center-right LDP.

I agree that there are some important exceptions on this front - I think objectively the Russian communist party is atrocious on these sorts of issues, although how much worse they are than Putin is a fair question.

That we are still having to struggle for damned bourgeois rights is absurd. But at the same time, I'm not nearly as optimistic as you are that the bourgeois rights are so secure, we need not really worry about defending them against reactionaries who want to roll back even the gains of 1789.

Thus I think lesser evilism has its place, as you suggest. You are right that the electoral contribution of people here are miniscule; the problem is when you apply that critique to people concerned about civil liberties more generally, it becomes less compelling. And at the same time, I can respect (although I don't fully agree) with those on here who defend lesser evilism, particularly on civil rights grounds.

[ed miliband]

What is the pathology of the radical left? An insane scholasticism that compels them to argue inane points of theory, so they may be blessedly consistent. While not realizing, all the while growing movements are inconsistent, simply because they grow so fast.

see though, this is a variant of ngnm85's argument -- the rejection of theory in favour of just doing something; that might be, on the one hand, smashing up starbucks or forming an urban guerrilla cell, or it might be voting obama or for the british labour party or whatever. these actions may not seem to be connected, but the underlying logic is that "revolutionaries" or "leftists" or whatever, are enlightened individuals who have to act in a particular way to make things better for the working class / free them from their chains. the dictum that the liberation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves is ignored.

[NGNM85]

see though, this is a variant of ngnm85's argument -- the rejection of theory
No-one's rejecting theory, as a concept. We merely, apparently, disagree on our philosophical perspective.

in favour of just doing something; that might be, on the one hand, smashing up starbucks or forming an urban guerrilla cell, or it might be voting obama or for the british labour party or whatever.
First off; supporting striking workers, handing out leaflets, holding a sit-in, or even voting for a candidate, or piece of legislation that one expects will improve the lot of the working class, or is, at least, better than the alternative, all of these things are infinitely more productive than sitting around circle jerking with the rest of the initiated. That isn't to say that ideas aren't important, ideas inform, and direct actions, but I seem to remember some German guy saying something about changing the world, as opposed to simply analyzing it. The guiding principle, at any given moment should be; 'What is in the interests of the working class?' That should be absolutely paramount.

these actions may not seem to be connected, but the underlying logic is that "revolutionaries" or "leftists" or whatever, are enlightened individuals who have to act in a particular way to make things better for the working class / free them from their chains. the dictum that the liberation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves is ignored.
We don't have to, but, presuming we're serious about what we believe, we absolutely have to try to. It makes no difference in my case, as I also happen to be of, and from the working class. However; unlike my co-workers, I am also a Radical. So, in my case, it's irrelevent. However; I would argue that this is bogus, for several reasons. First, because it implies that we really have no role to play in the class struggle, that we should be, essentially spectators. (Which isn't that far from the way things are, at present.) I disagree. I think that we both have a vital role to play, and an obligation to do so. Second; it's sort of a false dichotomy. The process of extracting reforms and concessions is a collective effort that generally requires very large numbers of people, primarily working class people. Therefore; virtually any reform, or concession fought for, and won, is won both by, as well as for the working class. Also; anything that improves the lot of the working class, by definition, empowers the working class.

[NGNM85]

The sophistry of the philistine Rebecca Solnit has been completely smashed on counterpunch:

counterpunch.org/2012/09/28/shut-up-and-vote-obama/

counterpunch.org/2012/10/01/hypocrite-narcissist-explains-things-to-the-raging-rancid-left/

counterpunch.org/2012/10/04/prozac-politics-and-the-death-of-ethics/

(I can't post links until I have reached 25 posts)

I can only hope that you had only skimmed these articles, and are, therefore mostly unaware of the contents. The best thing I can say about these pieces is that they manage to perfectly illustrate my point about people employing not merely bad arguments, but shockingly bad arguments. Absolutely ludicrous.

[Luís Henrique]

The problem with choosing the lesser evil between Democrats and Republicans is that it reinforces the True Greater Evil, which is the two-party system. This is what has to be destroyed.

Luís Henrique

[NGNM85]

The problem with choosing the lesser evil between Democrats and Republicans is that it reinforces the True Greater Evil, which is the two-party system. This is what has to be destroyed.

Luís Henrique

Not exactly. The crux of the problem is capitalism, and the nation state, which is essentially, y'know, 'the executive committeee of the bourgeoisie'. Participating, or not participating in the political system has, really, no effect on that, whatsoever. It isn't as if enough of us cease to vote that capitalism will disappear, or revolution will magically manifest itself. Nomatter how hard we pretend these things don't exist, they will not go away. What we can do is utilize the availible mechanisms that we have built into our respective political systems to defend the working class, and empower the working class, in truth; we must. Sometimes that means voting for the lesser evil. It can also mean voting for various pieces of legislation. It can mean any number of things.

[Luís Henrique]

It isn't as if enough of us cease to vote that capitalism will disappear, or revolution will magically manifest itself.

I am not arguing for not voting. I am arguing for not voting for any of the two State parties. I am pretty sure that to put an end to the two-party system, people will have to vote. But they will have to vote for some other thing, not for Republicans or Democrats. Hopefully, for a working-class party; but at this moment, anything to the left of an American version of the NSDAP is probably an improvement.


Sometimes that means voting for the lesser evil.The lesser evil is anything that puts an end to the two-party system. For the two-party system is the greater evil. Voting for the Democrats perpetuates the Republicans.

Luís Henrique

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Not exactly. The crux of the problem is capitalism, and the nation state, which is essentially, y'know, 'the executive committeee of the bourgeoisie'. Participating, or not participating in the political system has, really, no effect on that, whatsoever.

Then why vote Obama?


It isn't as if enough of us cease to vote that capitalism will disappear, or revolution will magically manifest itself. Nomatter how hard we pretend these things don't exist, they will not go away.

You are making strawmen now! No one has claimed that ceasing to vote will liquidate capitalism, nor did anyone proport a 'mystical, out of the blue revolution' to occur. All they said was that voting, within America's current political system, is fundamentally pointless (even moreso if you're a socialist).


What we can do is utilize the availible mechanisms that we have built into our respective political systems to defend the working class, and empower the working class, in truth; we must. Sometimes that means voting for the lesser evil. It can also mean voting for various pieces of legislation. It can mean any number of things.

NDAA was a major boon for the working class. I mean sure it's pretty crap that the US military can act with absolute impunity on American soil with no need for clause, but hey! It's a hell of a lot better than Romney's blatantly identical - I mean bourgeois - NDAA!

I swear, you remind me of a family member I have. We always have debates over whether voting has a point or not in America, and he comes out on the same positions as you. After arguing with him that Obama's outlook on Iran is no different from Romney's, I accused him of backing a 'friendly imperialist', to which he quite ironically replied "YES!"

[NGNM85]

Then why vote Obama?

I'm actually talking about a lot more than just voting for the president, I'm actually talking about more than voting. What I am suggesting is that we should be availing ourselves of all of the mechanisms availible in our political system, that includes voting for the most Left-leaning candidates we can get elected, it means voting for progressive legislation, it could also mean introducing legislation. As I was saying earlier; gay marriage is on the ballot in three states. Vermont is on the verge of establishing it's own universal healthcare system. Why aren't we working to make things like this happen in other states? Why aren't we leading the charge?


You are making strawmen now! No one has claimed that ceasing to vote will liquidate capitalism, nor did anyone proport a 'mystical, out of the blue revolution' to occur.

It's a paraphrase, but not an inaccurate one. It has been repeatedly said, disingenuously, that participating in, or encouraging participation in the political system only legitimizes and reinforces it. Presuming we accept this conclusion, (I don't.) the flipside of that is that if we can just get enough people to not participate, this somehow delegitimizes, or destabalizes the system.


All they said was that voting, within America's current political system, is fundamentally pointless (even moreso if you're a socialist).

People have said that, as well, they happen to be wrong. What happens in state legislatures, and in Washington has real consequences for the working class. Presuming you care about the working class, which is probably the most fundamental precondition of being a Socialist, then you should be concerned about that.


NDAA was a major boon for the working class. I mean sure it's pretty crap that the US military can act with absolute impunity on American soil with no need for clause, but hey! It's a hell of a lot better than Romney's blatantly identical - I mean bourgeois - NDAA!

Actually, there is a difference; Mitt Romney wants to give the Pentagon up to 2 trillion dollars more than they are asking for. You really have no point. First; you are taking one isolated characteristic, and extrapolating from that there is no policy difference between the two, which is both untrue, and doesn't logically follow, furthermore; you also seem to suggesting that someone enthusiasm for the President, or his party. That's not the case.


I swear, you remind me of a family member I have. We always have debates over whether voting has a point or not in America,

There's no question.


and he comes out on the same positions as you.

I'm not sure you fully grasp what I'm saying, but I'd be happy to elaborate.


After arguing with him that Obama's outlook on Iran is no different from Romney's, I accused him of backing a 'friendly imperialist', to which he quite ironically replied "YES!"

First of all; unless you happen to live in Virginia, or North Carolina, (Your profile simply says; 'The South.') your vote has absolutely no effect, whatsoever, on who becomes the next President. You might as well leave the box empty. That's probably what I'll do, because Massachusetts isn't a swing state, either.

First of all; just because I'm not sure you know this, but in most states, virtually all of them, you don't just vote for politicians, but pieces of proposed legislation. In fact; not only can you vote on these bills, but in a number of states, private citizens can actually introduce bills to be voted on. This is what I was talking about earlier.

I won't waste time arguing for why we should vote for gay marriage, etc., I'm just going to assume that's obvious to most people. As for voting for candidates, again, this is because what happens in Washington, and the state legislatures has a real effect on working class people. Admittedly; the United States has a serious democratic deficit, at this point we really only have the choice of electing one of the two wings of the business party. (Which is something we could be working to change, if we wanted to.)However; owing to the fact that these parties reflect different factions of the elite, there are slight policy differences. When possible, we should be voting in such a way that is best for the working class, up to, and including voting for the 'lesser evil', again, without illusions. That's just common sense. There's nothing wrong with voting for the 'friendly imperialist', over the 'less friendly imperialist', if those are the only availible choices.

[NGNM85]

I am not arguing for not voting.

Ok. That's a distinction, right there.


I am arguing for not voting for any of the two State parties. I am pretty sure that to put an end to the two-party system, people will have to vote. But they will have to vote for some other thing, not for Republicans or Democrats.

First; even within the admittedly, limited, two-party framework, there are still reasons to vote. The policy differences may be, for the most part, very narrow, but they exist. That being the case, that requires us, when possible, to make the choice that is better for the working class. Second; more fundamentally, the only way to get to a three-party system, or a four-party system, etc., is through the two party system. First you need to make the institutional, structural changes that make such a thing, presently, impossible, you'd have to overturn Citizens' United, which should be our top priority, anyhow, you'd also have to institute transfer voting, etc., etc.


Hopefully, for a working-class party; but at this moment, anything to the left of an American version of the NSDAP is probably an improvement.

Let's please not get sucked into that...


The lesser evil is anything that puts an end to the two-party system.

See above.


For the two-party system is the greater evil.

No, the greater evil is capitalism, and the institutions that perpetuate it, such as nation-states.


Voting for the Democrats perpetuates the Republicans.

Luís Henrique

No, this is nonsense.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

No-one's rejecting theory, as a concept. We merely, apparently, disagree on our philosophical perspective.
What, precisely, would you call your philosophical perspective? From what I have read so far, it seems as though you are a pragmatist. It does not matter whether you agree or not, I am just curious.

[Leroy Brown]

Why aren't we leading the charge?

With the exception of NGNM85, you guys aren't sufficiently capable of cooperating with others to be part of "the charge", much less lead it. That's why you're on the margins of political reality, which in turn explains why your tactics (which would be ... what, again?) aren't working.

That's actually overstating it. People like the Greens and the Constitutionalists are at least "on the margins."

[Luís Henrique]

First; even within the admittedly, limited, two-party framework, there are still reasons to vote. The policy differences may be, for the most part, very narrow, but they exist. That being the case, that requires us, when possible, to make the choice that is better for the working class.

There is no "two-party framework", though. Actually, there is much partidary freedom in the US; you can vote for practically anything, and if you are not happy with the existing options, you are perfectly free to create a new one.

The Demo-Republican grip over the American vote isn't institutionalised into law, it is overwhelmingly ideological.


Second; more fundamentally, the only way to get to a three-party system, or a four-party system, etc., is through the two party system. First you need to make the institutional, structural changes that make such a thing, presently, impossible, you'd have to overturn Citizens' United, which should be our top priority, anyhow, you'd also have to institute transfer voting, etc., etc.You are fundamentally wrong here. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have the slightest interest to change the present system. Much on the contrary, it is perfect for them, each side being able to scare half of the electorate by using the other party as a bogeyman.

To put an end to the two-party system, yes, Citizens United would have to be overturned. But more importantly, you would need to put an end to the Electoral college and institute an actual direct election, require a majority for election of the president and institute a second electoral round in the case no candidate reaches it, put an end to the First Past the Post districtal voting system and replace it with a proportional representation system, limit terms incumbent representatives and senators can serve. None of these actions is likely to be proposed by the Democrats; indeed, they simply ignore such issues, and instead base their electoral campaigns on the assumption that the electoral system is immutable.

And why do they do that?

Because they haven't the leastest interest to change the two-party system - because the two-party system allows them a practical monopoly of all vote from the center-right to the extreme left, while at the same time making them completely unnacountable for all that electorate, except the center-right.


Let's please not get sucked into that...It is better to get sucked into that than into the two-party logic.

What I am saying is very simple: even a new right-wing party would be an improvement in the American scenario (if only because it would divide the Republicans, ensure the Democrats don't need to pander to the right, and free the center and left-of-center voters from the Democratic grip by loosening the fear that the Republicans would win).

Do you disagree?


No, the greater evil is capitalism, and the institutions that perpetuate it, such as nation-states.Sure, but this is a cop-out. To put an end to capitalism and nation-States, it is necessary to organise opposition to them. The two-party system in the United States makes it impossible, by constraining all the non-right-wing vote into supporting a party that has no interest in putting an end to either nation-States or capitalism, by creating a permanent scare that the lunatic right can win elections.


No, this is nonsense.It is clearly not. For it is in the best interests of the Democratic Party to keep the Republicans alive, strong, and increasingly more radical, because this allows them to win elections with a left-sounding discourse (or a center-sounding one, which is increasingly misidentified as left), and then implement rightist policies once elected. And indeed, the more the Republican Party moves to the right, the more the Democrats are able to move to the right themselves without loosing their grip on the left-of-center vote.

The Democratic party may be the less evil side of the coin, and when it is flipped, it is understandable that people will hope they fall on the upper side. But the problem is the coin, the fact that it is flipped, and the way it is flipped.

Luís Henrique

PS. And just to make it clear, not voting and claiming that not voting is some kind of special superior conscious action is as bad as voting Democrat, and helps to perpetuate the two-party system so very much as voting Democrat. It is actually necessary to put up a program that consciously seeks to destroy the two-party system. It doesn't even need to be a leftist, much less a socialist program; just a purely political program that calls for the democratisation of American electoral system to allow the free political expression of all political tendencies from the far left to the far right.

[NGNM85]

There is no "two-party framework", though. Actually, there is much partidary freedom in the US; you can vote for practically anything, and if you are not happy with the existing options, you are perfectly free to create a new one.

That's technically correct. You can even vote for yourself for the Presidency, but this serves about as much purpose as jacking off, or playing Halo. In swing states, or in contested districts, stuff like this is actually probably counterproductive.


The Demo-Republican grip over the American vote isn't institutionalised into law, it is overwhelmingly ideological.

That might be true, but if the structural hurdles make it logistically impossible for third parties to mount any kind of serious competition; it doesn't make any difference.


You are fundamentally wrong here. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have the slightest interest to change the present system. Much on the contrary, it is perfect for them, each side being able to scare half of the electorate by using the other party as a bogeyman.

Both parties want to maximize their representation in the government. However; the Democratic party is much more open to election reform.


To put an end to the two-party system, yes, Citizens United would have to be overturned. But more importantly, you would need to put an end to the Electoral college and institute an actual direct election, require a majority for election of the president and institute a second electoral round in the case no candidate reaches it, put an end to the First Past the Post districtal voting system and replace it with a proportional representation system, limit terms incumbent representatives and senators can serve.

.......Essentially; yes. Although; I'd add transfer voting to that list, as well.


None of these actions is likely to be proposed by the Democrats; indeed, they simply ignore such issues, and instead base their electoral campaigns on the assumption that the electoral system is immutable.

Again; the Democratic party has been much more supportive of election reform. The Democratic leadership; Reid, Pelosi, and the President, have all criticized the Citizens' ruling, I know Pelosi has expressed support for a Constitutional amendment, which is what really needs to happen. I wouldn't expect any real leadership on this, that needs to take place in the state legislatures, anyhow, but these sentiments can certainly be exploited.


And why do they do that?

Because they haven't the leastest interest to change the two-party system - because the two-party system allows them a practical monopoly of all vote from the center-right to the extreme left, while at the same time making them completely unnacountable for all that electorate, except the center-right.

That's not a wholly inaccurate characterization, however, my primary disagreement with this is that you seem to be suggesting that this is a deliberate strategy, as opposed to an unsconscious phenomena arising from a complex intersection of underlying economic, and political forces.


It is better to get sucked into that than into the two-party logic.

I'd just really like to avoid invoking the Third Reich, I don't think it's at all helpful.


What I am saying is very simple: even a new right-wing party would be an improvement in the American scenario (if only because it would divide the Republicans, ensure the Democrats don't need to pander to the right, and free the center and left-of-center voters from the Democratic grip by loosening the fear that the Republicans would win).

Do you disagree?

That depends on the specifics of the individual races. It could be good, bad, or irrelevent. The bigger point is that this is highly unlikely, not simply because of the aforementioned structiral limitations, but because the Republican party has slid about as far to the Right as humanly possible, without sliding into neo-Fascism. This is, in part, the result of districting, where the lines are drawn as such where there is no viable Democratic opposition, therefore; the only danger to Republican candidates is being outflanked on the Right. This has happened, a number of times, recently with Sen. Richard Lugar being defeated by Richard Murdouck, that's how a number of these Tea Party freshmen got elected, the party has been purging itself of moderates.


Sure, but this is a cop-out. To put an end to capitalism and nation-States, it is necessary to organise opposition to them.

It's necessary to criticize them, certainly. However; political abstentionism is not the answer.


The two-party system in the United States makes it impossible, by constraining all the non-right-wing vote into supporting a party that has no interest in putting an end to either nation-States or capitalism, by creating a permanent scare that the lunatic right can win elections

.It is clearly not. For it is in the best interests of the Democratic Party to keep the Republicans alive, strong, and increasingly more radical, because this allows them to win elections with a left-sounding discourse (or a center-sounding one, which is increasingly misidentified as left), and then implement rightist policies once elected. And indeed, the more the Republican Party moves to the right, the more the Democrats are able to move to the right themselves without loosing their grip on the left-of-center vote.

Again; that's not a wholly inaccurate characterization, however, my primary disagreement with this is that you seem to be suggesting that this is a deliberate strategy, as opposed to an unsconscious phenomena arising from a complex intersection of underlying economic, and political forces.


The Democratic party may be the less evil side of the coin, and when it is flipped, it is understandable that people will hope they fall on the upper side. But the problem is the coin, the fact that it is flipped, and the way it is flipped.

Luís Henrique

Of course. That's a given. The question is, given that these are the circumstances; what is the most prudent course of action?


PS. And just to make it clear, not voting and claiming that not voting is some kind of special superior conscious action...

It's totally bogus. I agree.


...is as bad as voting Democrat,

...and here is where we diverge. In the absence of a viable alternative, in a swing state, or a contested district; this may be the most prudent course of action. For example; if you live in Missouri, and you care about reproductive rights, you should vote for Claire McCaskill, over Todd 'Legitimate Rape' Akin. There's no other way to see it. Otherwise you're saying you really don't care about reproductive rights, or, at the very least, that it's not a top priority.


...and helps to perpetuate the two-party system so very much as voting Democrat.

No, it doesn't. Voting does not, in any way, necessitate internalizing, or perpetuating any illusions.


It is actually necessary to put up a program that consciously seeks to destroy the two-party system. It doesn't even need to be a leftist, much less a socialist program; just a purely political program that calls for the democratisation of American electoral system to allow the free political expression of all political tendencies from the far left to the far right.

That's a fucking fantastic idea. I couldn't agree more. In fact; I've been saying so, for some time now. What I want to know, is if you have any ideas about how to explain this in language the others can understand.

[Luís Henrique]

That's technically correct. You can even vote for yourself for the Presidency, but this serves about as much purpose as jacking off, or playing Halo. In swing states, or in contested districts, stuff like this is actually probably counterproductive.

That might be true, but if the structural hurdles make it logistically impossible for third parties to mount any kind of serious competition; it doesn't make any difference.

To put it more precisely, the logic of the American electoral system prevents third parties from being any thing but marginal.


Both parties want to maximize their representation in the government. However; the Democratic party is much more open to election reform.Maybe; what electoral reforms would the Democratic party (not individual Democrats) support?


.......Essentially; yes. Although; I'd add transfer voting to that list, as well.It certainly isn't an exhaustive list. I would add also transfering the control of elections from the Legislative and Executive branches to the Judiciary (and this would quite probably require also a reform of the Judiciary, ending elections for jugdes, justices, and public prosecutors), and closed list voting.


Again; the Democratic party has been much more supportive of election reform. The Democratic leadership; Reid, Pelosi, and the President, have all criticized the Citizens' ruling, I know Pelosi has expressed support for a Constitutional amendment, which is what really needs to happen. I wouldn't expect any real leadership on this, that needs to take place in the state legislatures, anyhow, but these sentiments can certainly be exploited.
I fear they express these sentiments because they don't feel pressured at all to transform them into actual legislation.


That's not a wholly inaccurate characterization, however, my primary disagreement with this is that you seem to be suggesting that this is a deliberate strategy, as opposed to an unsconscious phenomena arising from a complex intersection of underlying economic, and political forces.
I don't think it is a deliberate strategy; it is simply the logic of the situation.

Whatever the political positions of US representatives and Senators, they all have one thing in common: they have all been elected through the existing electoral system, which means, this system works for them. They are consequently unlikely to question that system, unless they are strongly pressured from below, or unless they are quite exceptional politicians.

(This works in every direction. At the end of the dictatorship in Brazil, the pro-dictatorship party discovered that it would no longer be able to win elections unless the rules were changed; so they started discussing an electoral reform that would boost their chances. The main proposal was districtal vote with FPTP vote. But they couldn't get their representatives to agree with that proposal, because many of them would never be elected by a district, depending on the contrary on statewide disperse vote. One of the most vocal oponents of the measure was indeed one of the politically most conservative and right-wing among their representatives; but he depended on the votes of policemen, and policemen aren't concentrated in one particular town or region. And so their proposed reform never became legislation, and their party dwindled as it had to be.)


I'd just really like to avoid invoking the Third Reich, I don't think it's at all helpful.I was not invoking the Third Reich. I was merely putting a limit to what would be desirable in terms of political changes in the US.


That depends on the specifics of the individual races. It could be good, bad, or irrelevent. The bigger point is that this is highly unlikely, not simply because of the aforementioned structiral limitations, but because the Republican party has slid about as far to the Right as humanly possible, without sliding into neo-Fascism. This is, in part, the result of districting, where the lines are drawn as such where there is no viable Democratic opposition, therefore; the only danger to Republican candidates is being outflanked on the Right. This has happened, a number of times, recently with Sen. Richard Lugar being defeated by Richard Murdouck, that's how a number of these Tea Party freshmen got elected, the party has been purging itself of moderates.Which evidently doesn't happen to the Democrats; if they are purging themselves from anything, it is from their more democratic politicians.

But yes, it is unlikely that a third party takes hold. Those to the right of the mainstream Republicans know how to manipulate the party so that it becomes increasingly radical; those to the left of the mainstream Democrats cannot do the same to the Democratic Party.

And it must be noted that such dynamics results also in the Democrats not challenging the Republican grip over constituencies they deem unwinable; this, as you say, entrenches the more radical GOPers. The contrary is the rule where the Republicans are unelectable; they will oppose any slightly more left-sounding Democrat, and only leave uncontested those that are very conservative and right of the center.


It's necessary to criticize them, certainly. However; political abstentionism is not the answer.It is not.


Again; that's not a wholly inaccurate characterization, however, my primary disagreement with this is that you seem to be suggesting that this is a deliberate strategy, as opposed to an unsconscious phenomena arising from a complex intersection of underlying economic, and political forces. I agree with you that it is not a deliberate strategy, but I don't think it makes a difference. Their objective interests play against them questioning the electoral system, and so, quite logically, they won't question it.


Of course. That's a given. The question is, given that these are the circumstances; what is the most prudent course of action?There are two possibilities that I can see. One, to build a political party to the aim of reforming the electoral system, with a political program that points more or les to what I have sketched above (put an end to the Electoral college and institute an actual direct election, require a majority for election of the president and institute a second electoral round in the case no candidate reaches it, put an end to the First Past the Post districtal voting system and replace it with a proportional representation system, limit terms incumbent representatives and senators can serve). As you say, such party will have a difficult task, but it can exploit the frailties of the system, too - mainly the existence of unopposed incumbents.

The other is to put that program into paper, get a lot of signatures, take it to the Democrats, and telling them we won't vote for them unless they agree with it, sign a public compromise with it, and transform it into legislative initiatives. And yes, to tell them we are serious when we say we won't vote for them - even if it means more wars in the Middle East, prohibition of abortions, or mandatory teaching of creationism in the educational system. In other words, that we are not afraid of their Republican bogeyman.

But to vote for the Democrats unconditionally only helps to move the American political scene to the right.


...and here is where we diverge. In the absence of a viable alternative, in a swing state, or a contested district; this may be the most prudent course of action. For example; if you live in Missouri, and you care about reproductive rights, you should vote for Claire McCaskill, over Todd 'Legitimate Rape' Akin. There's no other way to see it. Otherwise you're saying you really don't care about reproductive rights, or, at the very least, that it's not a top priority.Revleft is an interesting place, that defines itself as "revolutionary" but only actually bans/restricts people on the subject of reforms. Yes, reproductive rights are important. No, they shouldn't be a top priority on themselves; as you say in a previous post,


The crux of the problem is capitalism, and the nation state, which is essentially, y'know, 'the executive committeee of the bourgeoisie'.Of course Ms. McCaskill is a better human being, and a much more "progressive" politician than Mr. Akin, and the world is a better place if she is the Missouri Senator rather than Mr. Akin. But by accepting that those are the only two options, we actually reinforce Mr. Akin and his political party; he, or people like him, will eternally remain The Enemy to Be Beaten; and reproductive rights will remain forever at risk. When what we need is to change the political discussion. We need to make reproductive rights a given, and to change the acceptable political discourse to the left. We need to put things like unemployment, or poverty, or workers' control over production, back into the public discourse, and we cannot do this if we accept to be blackmailed on the issue of abortion (or of teaching evolution, or of military aggression abroad, or whatever).

The far right knows exactly how to do it, and has actually been moving the public discourse to the right; they have not only kidnapped the GOP and radicalised it to the right, they have changed the Democratic Party to the right, and, worse, they have been changing the electorate as a whole to the right. The left, instead, worries about loosing elections, while pretending they don't care.


That's a fucking fantastic idea. I couldn't agree more. In fact; I've been saying so, for some time now. What I want to know, is if you have any ideas about how to explain this in language the others can understand.C. G. P. Grey has a few short You Tube videos about electoral systems that are fun, easy to understand, and make the point quite well.

For instance,
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

I am sure they aren't perfect, but they can be used to explain what is wrong with the American electoral system - or other, better, propaganda material can be designed.

But it can't help if at least some people don't stand up to the task of building a political force, be it an independent political party, or a pressure group to counter-scare the Democrats, that puts electoral reform as a pivotal goal to their political action.

Luís Henrique

[NGNM85]

Maybe; what electoral reforms would the Democratic party (not individual Democrats) support?

It varies, obviously, I think the general preference is to return to the way it used to be, under McCain-Feingold, of course; this is impossible. Some, notably Sen. Pelosi, have expressed support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens', presumably replacing it with public campaign financing, which would be the ideal. Although; again, I wouldn't expect any leadership on this battle, which really needs to be fought in the individual state legislatures. However; I believe that this can be exploited, if we can summon sufficient political pressure.


It certainly isn't an exhaustive list. I would add also transfering the control of elections from the Legislative and Executive branches to the Judiciary (and this would quite probably require also a reform of the Judiciary, ending elections for jugdes, justices, and public prosecutors), and closed list voting.

We can debate about some of that, I don't think all of that is immediately necessary. Transfer voting, is, however, I think. I mean, one of the primary reasons people don't vote for third partiesw, beyond the lack of visibility, or identification with one of the two establishment parties, is that they don't want to waste their vote, which is, incidentally, a fairly sound point. With transfer voting, you remove this impediment. Voters would be free to vote for Jill Stein, or whomever, without risking a repeat of the 2000 debacle.


I fear they express these sentiments because they don't feel pressured at all to transform them into actual legislation.

I think in many cases it's genuine, although; as I've said, I wouldn't expect any bold action.


I don't think it is a deliberate strategy; it is simply the logic of the situation.

Ok, well I think that's an important distinction.


Whatever the political positions of US representatives and Senators, they all have one thing in common: they have all been elected through the existing electoral system, which means, this system works for them. They are consequently unlikely to question that system, unless they are strongly pressured from below, or unless they are quite exceptional politicians.

That's fairly accurate.


Which evidently doesn't happen to the Democrats; if they are purging themselves from anything, it is from their more democratic politicians.

The general wisdom among the talking heads, and political insiders, since Dukakis lost, is that the party had become too Left wing, and this was the reason for their losses at the polls. This heralded Bill Clinton, and the Democratic Leadership council, which Jesse Jackson used to call; 'Democrats For the Leisure class.' President Obama is not a part of this faction, but tends toward the Right end of his party. This isn't surprising; his tenure in the Senate was similarly very cautious, and conservative.


But yes, it is unlikely that a third party takes hold. Those to the right of the mainstream Republicans know how to manipulate the party so that it becomes increasingly radical; those to the left of the mainstream Democrats cannot do the same to the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately.


And it must be noted that such dynamics results also in the Democrats not challenging the Republican grip over constituencies they deem unwinable; this, as you say, entrenches the more radical GOPers. The contrary is the rule where the Republicans are unelectable; they will oppose any slightly more left-sounding Democrat, and only leave uncontested those that are very conservative and right of the center.

Yeah; in a nutshell.


It is not.

Ok; but, obviously, unfortunately, that's where most of the Radical Left is; just look at this thread.


I agree with you that it is not a deliberate strategy, but I don't think it makes a difference. Their objective interests play against them questioning the electoral system, and so, quite logically, they won't question it.

See above.


There are two possibilities that I can see. One, to build a political party to the aim of reforming the electoral system, with a political program that points more or les to what I have sketched above (put an end to the Electoral college and institute an actual direct election, require a majority for election of the president and institute a second electoral round in the case no candidate reaches it, put an end to the First Past the Post districtal voting system and replace it with a proportional representation system, limit terms incumbent representatives and senators can serve). As you say, such party will have a difficult task, but it can exploit the frailties of the system, too - mainly the existence of unopposed incumbents.

The other is to put that program into paper, get a lot of signatures, take it to the Democrats, and telling them we won't vote for them unless they agree with it, sign a public compromise with it, and transform it into legislative initiatives. And yes, to tell them we are serious when we say we won't vote for them - even if it means more wars in the Middle East, prohibition of abortions, or mandatory teaching of creationism in the educational system. In other words, that we are not afraid of their Republican bogeyman.

Frankly; I think both of these are deeply flawed, but the former moreso than the latter. First; this second idea, again, misconstrues the facts on the ground by implying deliberate collusion between the parties. Second; threatening to abstain from the vote is not likely to produce any kind of positive effect. First of all; the Radical Left doesn't have the numbers to tilt any election that isn't already very close. We aren't sufficiently numerous, and we don't have enough public support. Look at what's happening, right here, in Massachusetts, about the bluest of the blue states, we've got Elizabeth Warren who's well to the Left end of the party, getting her ass kicked, (in Massachusetts!!!) by Scott Brown. If it weren't for the presidential race, she'd be totally underwater. If she manages to win the election, it'll be by the skin of her teeth, and only because a lot of people are going to turn out to vote for the President. In order for this threat to have any meaning requires a Left-leaning majority, or large minority, that probably doesn't exist, in most cases. Also; this tactic is actually counterproductive, first; because, at best, it ensures increased Republican control over Congress, and the state legislatures, second; if anything, it sends the message that the Democrats need to move further to the Right. No; what we should be doing, among other things, is voting for the furthest Left, of the viable candidates, (Emphasis on; 'viable.') without illusions, and put consistent pressure to push them further leftward. This is a model that was used very successfully by the Civil Rights movement.


But to vote for the Democrats unconditionally only helps to move the American political scene to the right.

Politicians can only govern if they get elected.


Revleft is an interesting place,

That's very generous...


...that defines itself as "revolutionary" but only actually bans/restricts people on the subject of reforms.

Oh, people get Banned, here, for a lot more than that. You can get Banned simply because a moderator dislikes you. Expressing support for social reform, or promoting reforms is met with extreme contempt, here, however; niether are actually prohibited by the forum rules.


Yes, reproductive rights are important. No, they shouldn't be a top priority on themselves; as you say in a previous post,

The top priority would be advancing the interests of the working class whenever possible, defending the interests of the working class whenever necessary. Defending reproductive rights is just one facet of that. An attack on reproductive rights is an attack on the working class. My point is, again; if you won't stand in line for ten minutes, and check a box to protect reproductive rights; you really don't give a shit about it.


Of course Ms. McCaskill is a better human being, and a much more "progressive" politician than Mr. Akin, and the world is a better place if she is the Missouri Senator rather than Mr. Akin.

Yes.


But by accepting that those are the only two options,..

They are the only two options, in that race. That's just an empirical fact. It's like the atomic weight of cobalt. There's simply no other answer that corresponds with reality.


...we actually reinforce Mr. Akin and his political party; he, or people like him, will eternally remain The Enemy to Be Beaten; and reproductive rights will remain forever at risk.

Reproductive rights will be at risk as long as a portion of the population opposes reproductive rights, and is able to foist it's agenda on the rest of the population, be it by force of numbers, or arms, etc.


When what we need is to change the political discussion. We need to make reproductive rights a given,...

....Then you're going to have to change the religious beliefs of a very large, and passionate strata of the American public. I'm not saying that's not a good idea, but it's not happening in any kind of immediate future.


and to change the acceptable political discourse to the left. We need to put things like unemployment, or poverty, or workers' control over production, back into the public discourse, and we cannot do this if we accept to be blackmailed on the issue of abortion (or of teaching evolution, or of military aggression abroad, or whatever).

The far right knows exactly how to do it, and has actually been moving the public discourse to the right; they have not only kidnapped the GOP and radicalised it to the right, they have changed the Democratic Party to the right, and, worse, they have been changing the electorate as a whole to the right. The left, instead, worries about loosing elections, while pretending they don't care.

None of these goals are advanced by allowing Reactionaries to dominate our political, and legislative systems.



C. G. P. Grey has a few short You Tube videos about electoral systems that are fun, easy to understand, and make the point quite well.

For instance,
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

I am sure they aren't perfect, but they can be used to explain what is wrong with the American electoral system - or other, better, propaganda material can be designed.

The primary focus should be overturning Citizens', and there's no shortage of material on the subject.It's not a particularly hard sell. The American people, the ones who understand it, absolutely despise it. While the political party leaderships are devided on this issue, the electorate is not. It transcends ideological boundries. I read one poll showing 80% of registered Democrats opposed to it, and 79% of Republicans, also, opposed. That's within the margin of error. That's a huge wellspring of popular anger just waiting to be capitalized on. This is what Occupy should have done. We missed a golden opportunity. (Again.)


But it can't help if at least some people don't stand up to the task of building a political force, be it an independent political party, or a pressure group to counter-scare the Democrats, that puts electoral reform as a pivotal goal to their political action.

Luís Henrique

In order to build a political force, we need to either come up with resources comperable to that of the establishment parties, in terms of finances, infrastructure, etc., (Which, obviously, is impossible.) or we have to break down the structural barriers to level the playing field. This should be accomplished by building a broad-based, bipartisan coalition, as you were saying, before, to remove these structural barricades.

[GerrardWinstanley]

Can we have more on the "pathology" of the radical right?

Where to begin really? Delusional projection ("the Left is so intolerant and mean-spirited"), imagined victimhood ("everyone sneers at conservatives", "Christians are persecuted in this country"), rhetorical sleight of hand ("YOU are the bigot [for criticising me]"), complete absence of self-awareness ("the Left just use the word 'racist'/'homophobe'/'islamophobe' to demean and intimidate people", "LIBTARD!!!", "DEMORAT!!!", "ANTI-SEMITE!!!", "I HATE the enemies of free speech", "string up traitors like Julian Assange by their scrota!"), jawdropping ability to cling to any conviction regardless of the conflicting evidence or how self-evidently fuckwitted it is ("Obama is still hiding his muslim past", "OMG Obama is the most far left, socialist president in all American history"), obnoxious lack of empathy for marginalised groups ("Robert Spencer is not Islamophobic, Islam isn't race", "black welfare mothers have it so easy under Obama", "it's the woman's fault being a whore if she has an unwanted preganancy", "why do the gay lobby hate me so much? I love homosexuals [obviously]", "why do Arabs hate Israel and America? those fanatical brutes"), laughable cognitive bias ("Most hard-working decent Americans/Brits agree with me"), splitting ("*insert small, militarily feeble, politically neutral country/population here* is the greatest existential threat to Israel in 65 years!!!") etc

Any psychoanalyst could have a field day.

[NGNM85]

Can we have more on the "pathology" of the radical right?

Where to begin really? Delusional projection ("the Left is so intolerant and mean-spirited"), imagined victimhood ("everyone sneers at conservatives", "Christians are persecuted in this country"), rhetorical sleight of hand ("YOU are the bigot [for criticising me]"), complete absence of self-awareness ("the Left just use the word 'racist'/'homophobe'/'islamophobe' to demean and intimidate people", "LIBTARD!!!", "DEMORAT!!!", "ANTI-SEMITE!!!", "I HATE the enemies of free speech", "string up traitors like Julian Assange by their scrota!"), jawdropping ability to cling to any conviction regardless of the conflicting evidence or how self-evidently fuckwitted it is ("Obama is still hiding his muslim past", "OMG Obama is the most far left, socialist president in all American history"), obnoxious lack of empathy for marginalised groups ("Robert Spencer is not Islamophobic, Islam isn't race", "black welfare mothers have it so easy under Obama", "it's the woman's fault being a whore if she has an unwanted preganancy", "why do the gay lobby hate me so much? I love homosexuals [obviously]", "why do Arabs hate Israel and America? those fanatical brutes"), laughable cognitive bias ("Most hard-working decent Americans/Brits agree with me"), splitting ("*insert small, militarily feeble, politically neutral country/population here* is the greatest existential threat to Israel in 65 years!!!") etc

Any psychoanalyst could have a field day.

All of this is true, of course. However; there doesn't seem to be any disagreement on this point. The sentiments you refer to are widely recognized, in this community, as totally bogus. That's pretty much a given. The pathology of the Radical Left that is the subject of this thread, whatever you want to call it; 'impossibilism', 'ultra-Radicalism', etc., is, clearly, epidemic in proportion, and, more importantly, predictably, most of those suffering from this pathology are unable to recognize it as pathological.

[Luís Henrique]

We can debate about some of that, I don't think all of that is immediately necessary. Transfer voting, is, however, I think. I mean, one of the primary reasons people don't vote for third partiesw, beyond the lack of visibility, or identification with one of the two establishment parties, is that they don't want to waste their vote, which is, incidentally, a fairly sound point. With transfer voting, you remove this impediment. Voters would be free to vote for Jill Stein, or whomever, without risking a repeat of the 2000 debacle.

Yes, that is an important point. Whether other points are immediately necessary, I don't know, but if people start bickering about what is and what is not immediately necessary, I fear you will be back to the "pathology of the radical left", splitting unnecessarily about tactical issues.

What Democrats have even heard of "transfer vote", much less publicly defended it, not even to talk putting it into paper and presenting it at legislative bodies for discussion and decision?


The general wisdom among the talking heads, and political insiders, since Dukakis lost, is that the party had become too Left wing, and this was the reason for their losses at the polls. This heralded Bill Clinton, and the Democratic Leadership council, which Jesse Jackson used to call; 'Democrats For the Leisure class.' President Obama is not a part of this faction, but tends toward the Right end of his party. This isn't surprising; his tenure in the Senate was similarly very cautious, and conservative.

Which would be the Democrats to the left of Mr. Obama, and what actual power do they hold within the party?


Frankly; I think both of these are deeply flawed, but the former moreso than the latter. First; this second idea, again, misconstrues the facts on the ground by implying deliberate collusion between the parties.

There is a practical collusion, determined by the situational logic and the immediate interests of both parties. I very much doubt it is deliberate, but I don't think it makes much of a difference.


Second; threatening to abstain from the vote is not likely to produce any kind of positive effect. First of all; the Radical Left doesn't have the numbers to tilt any election that isn't already very close. We aren't sufficiently numerous, and we don't have enough public support.

That being the reason the radical left shouldn't do it. The proposal however would be to build a movement for political reform, and have that movement to threat abstention (or splitting).


Look at what's happening, right here, in Massachusetts, about the bluest of the blue states, we've got Elizabeth Warren who's well to the Left end of the party, getting her ass kicked, (in Massachusetts!!!) by Scott Brown. If it weren't for the presidential race, she'd be totally underwater. If she manages to win the election, it'll be by the skin of her teeth, and only because a lot of people are going to turn out to vote for the President. In order for this threat to have any meaning requires a Left-leaning majority, or large minority, that probably doesn't exist, in most cases.

The problem then is to build a left-leaning majority or large minority. Evidently you can't do that by pretending that elections aren't important, by abstaining in an apolitical way, or by supporting fractious candidates of no political import. But you cannot also build it by supporting the present situation.


Also; this tactic is actually counterproductive, first; because, at best, it ensures increased Republican control over Congress, and the state legislatures, second; if anything, it sends the message that the Democrats need to move further to the Right.

I don't think it sends the message that Democrats should move further to the right, much on the contrary.


No; what we should be doing, among other things, is voting for the furthest Left, of the viable candidates, (Emphasis on; 'viable.') without illusions, and put consistent pressure to push them further leftward. This is a model that was used very successfully by the Civil Rights movement.

I don' think this would result in any way in an electoral reform.

And the Civil Rights movement certainly did not support the Democratic Party en masse; it put its political aims before the Democrats and asked them to support them. There were lots of racist Democrats at the time, and they weren't supported by the Civil Rigths movement.


Oh, people get Banned, here, for a lot more than that. You can get Banned simply because a moderator dislikes you.

Certainly, but they usually have to at least pretend a political motive. If an admin bans a poster and justifies it like, "because I don't like him", this would quite probably result in some questioning of his or her misuse of administrative tools.


Expressing support for social reform, or promoting reforms is met with extreme contempt, here, however; niether are actually prohibited by the forum rules.

I disagree with that. Suppporting certain social reforms is practically mandatory here. I mean you can safely say that you don't care if workers get a wage rise or not, because a wage rise doesn't change the capitalist nature of the State or economy; but if you say something vaguely similar about abortions you will be quite certainly immediately banned or restricted.


The top priority would be advancing the interests of the working class whenever possible, defending the interests of the working class whenever necessary. Defending reproductive rights is just one facet of that. An attack on reproductive rights is an attack on the working class. My point is, again; if you won't stand in line for ten minutes, and check a box to protect reproductive rights; you really don't give a shit about it.

I think you overstate a bit the extent to which reproductive rights are really dependent on legislative majorities or executive heads. The Republicans have many times held the US Presidency and State governorships, as well as majorities in House and Senate, but were not able to overturn Roe vs Wade (and I frankly am not sure if they want to; it would remove a major rallying cry for them).

On the other hand, I agree that reproductive rights are an integral part of the working class' interests. But they cannot substitute for such interests as a whole. A bourgeois politician that upholds reproductive rights but also supports budget cuts in order to restore balance is still an enemy of the working class.


They are the only two options, in that race. That's just an empirical fact. It's like the atomic weight of cobalt. There's simply no other answer that corresponds with reality.

That race ends next Tuesday, which is to say in three days. Nothing can be really done regarding it anymore. There is going to be another race in 2014, though, and still another in 2016, and so on. What are we doing to prevent the 2014 race to have only two options again (or in so many cases, indeed, only one option)?


Reproductive rights will be at risk as long as a portion of the population opposes reproductive rights, and is able to foist it's agenda on the rest of the population, be it by force of numbers, or arms, etc.

Which again means parliamentary majorities aren't that decisive when it comes to reproductive rights.


....Then you're going to have to change the religious beliefs of a very large, and passionate strata of the American public. I'm not saying that's not a good idea, but it's not happening in any kind of immediate future.

No, but it is not going to happen in any kind of distant future either, unless we start working for it now.


None of these goals are advanced by allowing Reactionaries to dominate our political, and legislative systems.

Your political and legislative system are dominated by reactionaries, and will continue to be so. The only difference is whether they are blue reactionaries or red reactionaries.


The primary focus should be overturning Citizens', and there's no shortage of material on the subject.

I fear this brings us back to the radical left pathology - struggling about tactical issues as if they were the center of a strategy.


It's not a particularly hard sell. The American people, the ones who understand it, absolutely despise it. While the political party leaderships are devided on this issue, the electorate is not. It transcends ideological boundries. I read one poll showing 80% of registered Democrats opposed to it, and 79% of Republicans, also, opposed. That's within the margin of error. That's a huge wellspring of popular anger just waiting to be capitalized on. This is what Occupy should have done. We missed a golden opportunity. (Again.)

Well, which Democrats are campaigning on grounds of overturning Citizens United? Which of them have actual bills prepared for bringing to the floor?


In order to build a political force, we need to either come up with resources comperable to that of the establishment parties, in terms of finances, infrastructure, etc., (Which, obviously, is impossible.) or we have to break down the structural barriers to level the playing field. This should be accomplished by building a broad-based, bipartisan coalition, as you were saying, before, to remove these structural barricades.

To remove such structural barricades you need a political force, though.

Luís Henrique

[NGNM85]

Yes, that is an important point. Whether other points are immediately necessary, I don't know, but if people start bickering about what is and what is not immediately necessary, I fear you will be back to the "pathology of the radical left", splitting unnecessarily about tactical issues.

That happens, sure, but I don’t see that as the biggest problem. The way I see it, the pathology I’m referring to, is that of ‘impossibilism’, or ‘ultra-Radicalism’; a fuzzy-minded puritanical rejection of any sort of incrementalism. This has the effect of rendering the Radical Left increasingly irrelevant, an ineffectual, and, paradoxically, only serves to reinforce the status quo.


What Democrats have even heard of "transfer vote", much less publicly defended it, not even to talk putting it into paper and presenting it at legislative bodies for discussion and decision?

'Single-Transferrable Vote', or; 'STV', for short.

I'm unaware of any specific examples of politicians who have introduced such measures. However; this is not unprecedented in American law, this process is used, here, in Cambridge, MA, for example. Moreover; I don't see any practical reason why there would be any immense opposition to it. This is a suggestion that could appeal to both the Left, and the Right. I think this could be fairly easy to introduce, and pass, as a ballot initiatives, in states where one can do that.


Which would be the Democrats to the left of Mr. Obama, and what actual power do they hold within the party?

The President is, of course, the leader of his party. To his Left, I would count all 76 members of the Progressive Caucus, for starters, Nancy Pelosi, who left the caucus when she became house minority leader, the Secretary of Labor, etc., etc. It's harder to find Democrats to his Right, than to his Left.


There is a practical collusion, determined by the situational logic and the immediate interests of both parties. I very much doubt it is deliberate, but I don't think it makes much of a difference.

It may not make much of a difference in the outcvome, but it makes a difference in our evaluation of the political landscape, because one is true, and the other is not.


That being the reason the radical left shouldn't do it. The proposal however would be to build a movement for political reform, and have that movement to threat abstention (or splitting).

I tend to agree, for the most part.


The problem then is to build a left-leaning majority or large minority. Evidently you can't do that by pretending that elections aren't important, by abstaining in an apolitical way, or by supporting fractious candidates of no political import. But you cannot also build it by supporting the present situation.

Participating in the political system does not, in any way, by itself, reinforce illusions, or maintain the status quo. Abstention, and self-marginalization, of the kind that is oh-so-popular around these parts, on the other hand, absolutely does.


I don't think it sends the message that Democrats should move further to the right, much on the contrary.

It's a numbers game. The sliver of Leftist voters, be they Radicals, or disenfranchised Liberals, simply will not compare, numerically, to the number of voters who vote for the Republicans. Therefore; this sends Democrats to the Right, hoping to grab some of the votes from that larger pool of voters.


I don' think this would result in any way in an electoral reform.

Only if that's part of the mandate.


And the Civil Rights movement certainly did not support the Democratic Party en masse; it put its political aims before the Democrats and asked them to support them. There were lots of racist Democrats at the time, and they weren't supported by the Civil Rigths movement.

Yes; and as a result of the political pressure exerted by the Civil Rights movement, which was enormously successful in winning real reforms, and concessions, split that wing of the party off, that's when the Democrats lost the South, why the South is still overwhelmingly dominated by the Republicans. (See; ‘Southern Strategy.’) The point is that they acheived real victories. Thankfully; they didn't suffer from the pathology of the modern Radicals, otherwise Jim Crow laws might still be in effect.


Certainly, but they usually have to at least pretend a political motive. If an admin bans a poster and justifies it like, "because I don't like him", this would quite probably result in some questioning of his or her misuse of administrative tools.

Well, yeah,; there's always an excuse, but, in a number of cases, this is very clearly just obviously transparent bullshit.


I disagree with that. Suppporting certain social reforms is practically mandatory here. I mean you can safely say that you don't care if workers get a wage rise or not, because a wage rise doesn't change the capitalist nature of the State or economy; but if you say something vaguely similar about abortions you will be quite certainly immediately banned or restricted.

I'm not going to get started on the abortion policy. That's a whole different can of worms.

My point is that almost universally, anyone who expresses the slightest bit of support for social reforms, or any kind of incrementalism, is attacked, and demonized.


I think you overstate a bit the extent to which reproductive rights are really dependent on legislative majorities or executive heads. The Republicans have many times held the US Presidency and State governorships, as well as majorities in House and Senate, but were not able to overturn Roe vs Wade (and I frankly am not sure if they want to; it would remove a major rallying cry for them).

First of all; the only way this could be accomplished is by electing a sufficient number of Reactionaries to the Supreme Court, (Which may very well happen.) or by having a Constitutional Convention, and having a sufficient number of states vote for a Constitutional Amendment. (Which will very probably never happen.) Those are the only ways by which this could be accomplished. Also; you're not considering the ideological shift over the last 40 years, or so. All three of Nixon's appointees were in the majority in Roe. The Republican party of 2012 is not the Republican party of 1973. Look at the party platforms from the late seventies, the eighties, they used to take no official position on abortion, they used to express support for organized labor, etc. I'm not sure when, exactly, the change happened, but it did. Today; the party is unequivocally Pro-Life, the official platform for 2012 explicitly called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade, which, i think, is the same as the last one, etc.Again; the only possibility of this happening, and it is a possibility, is if the Republicans are able to get one more Reactionary, someone like Robert Bork, for example, on the bench, then it could be overturned. That's, unfortunately, quite possible. Abortion would be up to the states, we can safely say in much of the South, and Midwest, it would be outlawed, there would be massive protests, and social upheaval, and, I think, ultimately, there would be an Amendment, or something, to overturn it. I think you're probably right in that the social fallout could very well be very damaging, in the long run, to the Republicans, if this eventuality were to occur.


On the other hand, I agree that reproductive rights are an integral part of the working class' interests. But they cannot substitute for such interests as a whole. A bourgeois politician that upholds reproductive rights but also supports budget cuts in order to restore balance is still an enemy of the working class.

Granted. However; if we have to live under bourgeois rule, anyhow, I would prefer one that protects reproductive rights, to one that does not.


That race ends next Tuesday, which is to say in three days. Nothing can be really done regarding it anymore. There is going to be another race in 2014, though, and still another in 2016, and so on.

Granted, but I'm talking about something much more than just Presidential elections. I'm talking about Senate races, House races, ballot initiatives, etc.


What are we doing to prevent the 2014 race to have only two options again (or in so many cases, indeed, only one option)?

What is being done, presently? Absolutely nothing. We could be doing all sorts of productive things, but I’m not holding my breath…


Which again means parliamentary majorities aren't that decisive when it comes to reproductive rights.

No; it means that Congress can't overturn Supreme Court decisions. Like I said; that can only be done by changing the ideological composition of the court, or by a Constitutional Amendment. What they can do, however, is introduce all sorts of measures, in the state legislatures, to disenfranchise women seeking abortions, or to make abortion much less accessible. This has been used very effectively, predominantly in the South, and Midwest, with the result being that abortion is much less available than it was, just a few years ago. I think that sucks. I'm trying to say, among other things, that seeing as we supposedly care so much about reproductive rights, that we have a dog in this fight, that this is something we should be paying attention to, and doing something about.


No, but it is not going to happen in any kind of distant future either, unless we start working for it now.

Ok, that means, among other things, overcoming the intransigence of much of the Radical Left.


Your political and legislative system are dominated by reactionaries, and will continue to be so. The only difference is whether they are blue reactionaries or red reactionaries.

No, no, no. I use the word; 'Reactionary', (Meaning; 'extreme Rightism in social, and political views.’) very literally, and very deliberately. Harry Reid, or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, are not Radicals, by any stretch of the imagination, but they aren't Reactionaries, either. They are Liberals. Rick Santorum is a Reactionary. Paul Ryan is a Reactionary.


I fear this brings us back to the radical left pathology - struggling about tactical issues as if they were the center of a strategy.

I don't see that as being the central issue, I see it as dispute between pragmatism, and impossibilism. It isn't that we're debating over which action to take, so much as one side opposing any action, at all. Much of the Radical Left, today, it seems, paradoxically, is deeply committed to maintaining the status quo.


Well, which Democrats are campaigning on grounds of overturning Citizens United? Which of them have actual bills prepared for bringing to the floor?



As I've said elsewhere, something like 11 states have already passed resolutions to overturn Citizens', I don't know the names of the individual politicians involved, in these states, I haven't studied it that closely. Also; Russ Feingold, for example, has started a political action committee toward that end, of course, he's no longer in Congress.


To remove such structural barricades you need a political force, though.

Luís Henrique

Yes; absolutely. I’ve been arguing for this for quite some time, now.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, the game is over; the boogie-woogie was duly defeated. Now you have two years, instead of two weeks, to do something, electorally speaking.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Here (https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=unopposed+incumbents&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#hl=pt-BR&client=opera&hs=bGt&tbo=d&channel=suggest&sclient=psy-ab&q=unopposed+incumbents&oq=unopposed+incumbents&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.7201.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.crn k_cprob..0.0...1.ql34P8che6g&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=3d903fc95e9f205f&bpcl=39314241&biw=1138&bih=608) is a google search for "unopposed incumbents".

What are we doing so that these people no longer run unopposed?

Luís Henrique