I appreciate Stew & Bill's concern about the threat of a resurgent right in much of the world. At a theoretical level, we need, I think, to appreciate how much this resurgent right feeds off of the ethnic/communitarian/personalistic/religio-traditional frustrations caused by the spread of corporate culture or "progress" (McWorld --see Ben Barber's great book on this: Jihad vs. McWorld --a good present for you late shoppers!). What the left needs to do is mount a consistent and reasonably coherent attack on precisely this culture, recognizing the subjective importance to humans of all of the above 'frustrations.' Simultaneously, we need to demonstrate how corporate/consumer capitalism not only oppresses & exploits labor, creating massive poverty & squalor amidst ostentatious (glamourous) affluence (the latter of which helps to keep the polity in tow --more on that below), but ALSO erodes the very community/family traditions and contexts that help give meaning to life (and provide a 'place' for face-to-face grass-roots democratic politics) AND is destroying our global habitat. In focusing primarily on these 'common' targets, we needn't overlook the importance of 'identity politics,' etc. but we should, I think, concentrate on how these arenas of subjective empowerment are themselves distorted & undermined by consumer capitalism (though there are "liberating" qualities associated with capitalism, ultimately the market is trying to bring these into its sway by converting them to forms of consumption, etc.) --and how the burdens of exploitation and poverty fall disproportionately on women and people of color the world over. That, in my view, is the theoretical ground. As for practicalities, that first means that the scope of the potential progressive coalition is far broader than what Stew suggests when he speaks of labor, blacks, and women. How about the environmentally-concerned majority? How about small, independent businesses (especially retail) who are being eradicated by McWorld & globalized "free" trade? There are significant contradictions buried in this coalition (e.g., small-business & labor; environmentalists & labor) --but these are products, I would argue, of the existing liberal/capitalist paradigm. What we need to work toward is a view that sees globalizing capitalism as the enemy of both a viable ecosphere and exploited working people. A view that sees it as the enemy of both small, independent business and labor is one that seeks to transcend the age-old imperative of exploited labor through more a shared, community-based decision-making process, in which all who have a 'stake' in the viabililty of a locally-owned business have some say over the kind of constraints that business must operate within (this can only happen when the larger market-based system is targeted by globally-organized forces which begin to narrow the scope of corporate freedom --there is, after all, an imperative to exploit labor built into the combination of private ownership and a market mechanism the mandates maximized capital accumulation, i.e., capitalism). But, second, in terms of practicality, Stew asks why can't this coalition work within the Democratic Party the way the Right works within the Republican party? The answer, I think, is two-fold. First, the electoral system must first be changed to open things up --e.g., proportional representation or other voting reforms which counteract the stranglehold of 'lesser-of-two evilisms.' Put somewhat differently, the Republican Party (or most people who think of themselves as Republicans), I think, recognizes that in almost all circumstances, to move in the direction of its right wing is to lose the Presidential election --simple lesser-of-two-evilism logic (the Reagan phenomenon was in some respects an anomaly that requires more discussion). Ditto, the Democratic Party. Note how both Parties' conventions were full of the 'ideological' rhetoric --e.g., Republic right & Gore-the-populist; whereas in the campaign it was back-to-the-center. BUT, this also reflects the stranglehold of corporate money on both parties --a system which is deeply and fundamentally corrupt and which elected officials themselves are not going to fix unless they are 'forced to.' This is the reason the Democratic Party abandoned its "McGovern wing" after 1972 via the Democratic Leadership Conference (in which Gov. Bill Clinton --and others like Chuck Robb, Mike Dukakis, etc.-- played a key role) -- check Tom Ferguson & Joel Rogers' Right Turn --another late Xmas goodie for you late shoppers), and its the reason the McGovern wing (cf. Stew's coalition) has been on the outside looking in, in every way except symbolically (speaking of such symbolism --I hope folks have noted the "politically correct" cabinet Dubbya is putting together!). In short, the battle to 'take over' the Democratic Party is probably going nowhere absent fundamental campaign reform. Which brings us back to other options --the need to build a strong coalition of grass-roots, radically-conscious (cf. above) organizations & like-minded folks to build pressure on "government" to start making the kinds of structural reforms that will open up the way for more serious political mobilization. This means (a) a movement towards a more coherent and cooperative left (on the latter, cf. the Independent Progressive Politics Network headed up by Ted Glick), (b) an organized outreach/organizing effort to communicate to the larger society that this vision is the only alternative to the eco-suicidal, horrifically unjust, and community-destroying one we have now, (c) the use of mass mobilizations to achieve both this communication and put pressure on the 'system,' and (d) the creation of electoral pressure on the existing two-party, lesser-of-two evil system so that the two parties (well, the more "progressively inclined" --in rhetoric at least-- Democratic Party) sees that it must respond or it will lose voters. This latter, in my view is why the Nader/Green effort was and still is so important. I don't suggest that I can predict what way this would go --it could ultimately, with really fundamental reform 'take over' a Democratic party in a more class-driven system; or it could become the basis for a third party (and maybe more) operating within an opened-up system.... Anyway, Stew says, "Let's work together in a pro-democracy movement." I'm absolutely with you on that one, Stew, but let's also strive for some clear thinking via discussing what that entails. Ted Morgan StewA@aol.com wrote: > Bill is right. His seeing that disillusionment with the American system could > push some in the direction of fascism is a signifiicant insight. The > worldwide defeat of socialism has diminished the capacity of the left to > provide alternatives. The right is very anxious to step in and is doing just > that in the US, Canada and Europe. > He is also right about the electoral college being part of our > incomplete democratic revolution and it must go. The fact that Hillary > Clinton agrees should not put us off. We should also support campaign finance > reform. Paula raised the question of demonstrations - many were organized > through the Internet - they were independent spirited affairs (including here > in Portland) and they went on all over the country. (God I wish we had the > Internet back in the '60's.) We must make maximum use of this new tecnology. > Also I can't help but wonder why a progressive alliance, of labor, Blacks and > women can't gain as much power in the Democratic Party as those right - wing > Christians have in the Republican. Maybe there is a reason - but it alludes > me. Let's work together ina pro-democracy movement. > Stew > http://hometown.aol.com/stewa/stew.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/21/00 EST