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/..._me_20120928//

[the Left™]

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?

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?

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.