Rebecca Solnit on the pathology of the Radical Left

[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/truthmedi...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.