Debate: The Hopes For Obama and Revolutionary Solutions
Posted by Mike E on March 25, 2008
The following thread contains an unfolding discussion about revolutionary politics and the electoral moment.
Suggestion: click to where that discussion TAKES OFF.
Obama: Truth and Denial in Modern Amerikkka
by Mike Ely
Let’s start with some truths:
How rare it is to turn on TV and see someone state the simple truth that the U.S. is a racist country run by rich white men. It has been remarkable to hear the suddenly-famous Rev. Jeremiah Wright describe how leaders in the U.S. have no sense of the lives of the oppressed, especially African American people. To hear passionate denunciation of the import of drugs with high-level complicity, of the Three-Strikes law and of the prison warehousing of young Black men. It was startling to hear someone say that we can’t understand 9/11 and the reaction of the world without looking deeply at U.S. mass murder at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and a hundred places since. It was a rare moment where very basic truths were powerfully expressed in public view, on TV, in a way that saturates national discussion for a week.
But it all comes with enforced denial:
It is the method of this system (its media, its official commentators, the minders of its official politics) to only allow such truths into public to demonize them — to mock them as absurd, extremist, even racist.
Rev. Wright’s Black Liberation Theology views were allowed into the spotlight – just this once – in order to command a massive denunciation.
How dare anyone make the U.S. the moral equivalent of its enemies, they said?
How dare anyone talk of U.S. killings, killers, and war crimes in the same breath as 9/11?
How dare anyone connect Israel’s oppression of Palestinians with the acts of attack on the U.S.?
How dare anyone point to the racist experiments in Tuskegee that allowed Black men to die of syphilis, and then wonder publicly if the spread and neglect of the AIDS epidemic included a conscious genocidal edge?
How dare a state senator, a U.S. senator, or a Presidential contender even sit in the pews while such things are hinted? How dare Obama remain friends with a man who could say and believe such things?
And none of this denunciation was done with any respect or integrity: Did anyone investigate the theology of James Cone? Did anyone explain to the public what happened at Tuskegee, or what “killers” the U.S. had sent into the world?
And that brings us to the second set of truth and denial:
The truth is that elections are not held mainly to hear “what the voters think.” Let’s be clear: These ruthless monsters of empire, profit and war don’t suddenly stop (for a few months every four years) and turn over all their power and disputes for “millions of ordinary voters” to decide. That isn’t what happens. That isn’t what elections are for.
The truth is that elections are mainly held as a process of indoctrination and legitimization. This is when the usually-tuned-out broad population is instructed in how to think about major issues. This is a time for defining and enforcing the official limits of political thought. This is how the ruling establishment tests and picks a contending set of new rulers. And then the winning clique is legitimized by the ritual of popular approval.
In U.S. elections, those outside the confines of “responsible thought” are in for a public whupping. Nader was crushed and then blamed for Bush – and millions were instructed to never stray from the Democratic Party again (however reactionary, warlike, and semi-Republican those Democrats get). Kucinich was portrayed as a silly gnome, as a joke, as someone ridiculously outside the realm of the possible (because he was actually against all of these wars, because he supported nationalized health care, because he supported gay marriage etc.)
It is now widely said that the Democrats are self-destructing – in today’s New York Times one oped piece compared them to the Donner Party (the pioneers who ate each other in a snowstorm).
But the reality is that they are being skewered on their defining contradiction: Their party, leadership and candidates want to rule an empire, while their own base thinks that is wrong. Their party, leadership and candidates want to service the drug and insurance companies, while their own core base wants generalized affordable health care.
And so, the price of admission into the White House itself becomes (for Democratic contenders) the tortured repudiation of many things that are actually popular and true. In particular, the Democratic plans for “ending the war” must be “responsible” – that means protracted withdrawal, leaving troops behind (or just “over the horizon). And it generally means planning to end the U.S. occupation while still controlling Iraq through a “Iraqi army” made up of vicious mercenaries and committed religious sectarians (led by puppet generals who imagine themselves the next U.S.-backed Saddam Hussein).
The “discussion of race” has now been “broached”… and framed as a discussion over the essential goodness of the U.S.! Wright is portrayed as an America-hater who must be repudiated by all — especially those close to him. The bitterness, suspicion, anger and alienation felt by many Black people is portrayed as something malignant, repulsive, dangerous, and perverse. (Just watch John Stewart’s shout of “Yikes” after running a Wright clip.)
That is the starting point for a official “discussion of race.” The discussion of the actual truth is treated like the “third rail”: you insist that this is a profoundly racist country where the oppression of Black people has been built in as a structural defining dynamic of society, then you are (by official proclamation) far outside disqualified from holding power (or even speaking in the official media spotlights).
Deep truth runs into harshly enforced denial.
I will not analyse Obama’s speech responding to this challenge here. He has been twisting in the wind, while pretending to be rising above the fray. He tried to remain personally loyal to his friend Wright, while joining the political repudiation of Wright’s views. And even that hint of holding back (of seeming to tolerate the views of Rev. Wright) may yet end Obama’s political life – either before or after the nomination.
And that is a truth about America and its elections laid bare here: The price of admission is the denial of the truth. It is an upholding of the empire and the basic structures of this society – even while promises of change and transcendence are written into the scripts.
This country was founded on slavery, genocide and conquest. And the continued enforcement of caste-like oppression of millions of Black and immigrant peoples is central to how the U.S. functions and thrives (as a capitalist power). And that is why people in the 60s (and people like Wright from the 60s) sometimes write Amerikkka with three Ks (connecting the country itself with white supremacy). The KKK itself may be gone with the particular system of Jim Crow. But the modern forms and morphings of white supremacy demand to be exposed and overturned — while the official approach is to defend them by denying their existance.
This needs to be is a simple, basic starting point for understanding this place, and grappling with what it will take to really change it.
* * * * * * *
Because Wright’s sermons are taken so out-of-context, here is a longer section of his 9/11 discussion, thanks to Winslie Gomez.
Winslie Gomez said
Well said. You seem to have a finger on the pulse! How many are going to believe? If their minds are made up already.
If you have no objection here is my link, I tend to have a better grasp of religion.
http://justlearningman.wordpress.com
theblacksmith777 said
From my understanding the Pastor was a Vietnam war veteran, and I think they justifiably can use that expression of “God Damn America”. I’m sure there are many of veterans using that expression as we speak. The treatment they receive upon return after putting their lives on the line for this country, have been less than humane. Being African American and surviving segregation is one more reason to speak those words. Some can see that the media executives are in bed with the special interest groups to destroy Obama’s nomination, for the very reasons Obama stated in his speech. The media exec’s seem to have a special interest in something other than the challenge Obama set forth to bridge the racial divide and seek a more perfect union. I’m also sure they understand continuing to run twenty seconds soundbytes of the Pastor, days after Obama delivered his speech addressing the Pastors comments from the pulpit, not only don’t help the understanding, but influence the racial divide. They think(know)that the people are naive to their motives to use the Senators challenge from his speech, to continue to run those soundbytes of the Pastor, to destroy his campaign. Hillary is not the only one throwing in the kitchen sink. The media is throwing it at the public as well to try and change the momentum and possibly the party nomination.
Rosa Harris said
First off, one thing that is usually not said is that the war itself is in the interest of the US ruling class – regardless of political affiliation. None of the plans dealing with Iraq have any intent on giving up US control over Iraq’s oil -that is because the oil is what the US went there for. In reality, they can not abandon this war – I’ve discussed this some here and in the posts above it:
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/event-what-is-bob-avakians-new-synthesis/#comment-2269
Another interesting observation by one of the writers at The Economist:
But one thing is clear: the row and the Democratic deadlock are wonderful for John McCain, who is looking like the luckiest man in American politics.
It is interesting to think about.
Winslie Gomez said
Kasama
Thank you.
The problem is that people read their Bibles as a proof text document so it is difficult to understand Rev Wright Jr, because the average person is fixated on the dramatic delivery.
Teensy weensy thought to add to your eloquence.
Mr. Roach said
Barack’s speech simulates a courageous address on race. But, as with more transparent race hustlers like Al Sharpton, he finds the engine of black faults in white racism, both in the past and (implausibly) in the present. A more courageous address would have asked for something real and substantive from blacks. But the black nationalism he and his pastor endorse does not consider blacks to have any faults, misdeeds, or need for collective action in contrast to the strenuous demands put upon whites. Real racial peace requires both sides to engage one another honestly and with sincerity. His hair trigger accusations of racism–against his grandma and Ferraro–coupled with his view of exquisite black victims and persistent white victimizers does nothing to advance such a conversation.
Victor Kulkosky said
White people just can’t handle black anger. Even progressive Whites with some degree of empathy would rather talk about black anger in the abstract than actually face it. Although I’m not a mind-reader, I suppose Obama knows this well and that’s why he steered away from direct discussion of racial issues. The current ruckus proves the absurdity of the common accusation “playing the race card.” It’s almost always a losing proposition for a black person to “play the race card.” The “card” in this race has always been played by Obama’s opponents and enemies, with great success of late.
Victor Kulkosky
http://outofmymind.wordpress.com
dlennis said
Well written!
However, something no one ever talks about is the prejudice and injustice shown to poor whites. The rich and powerful do everything possible to keep us down too.
Also, if America’s leadership is truly as you say, and quite honestly I believe it is, then it really does not matter who is elected to the office of president.
Capitalism is broken…it has out grown our ability to manage it and has been so manipulated by the rich and powerful that it only gives more life to corruption and immorality.
Prejudice spit from the poison tongue of anyone, regardless of race, does nothing but perpetuate hate and draws attention from the true underlying realities of our country and government…but, what can we do about it? How can we change what’s truly wrong with this country?
One thing is for sure…allowing ourselves to be distracted and divided as a people, and I mean all of us, will never solve anything. In that light, giving creditability to anything that someone like Reverend Wright, or anyone like him black white or otherwise, says like we are doing by keeping it all in the spotlight is detrimental to ever solving any of our problems.
PV said
Good Post. The notion of patriotism & being non-racial always seems to be a view that is held for public convenience. The underlying feelings probably never go away, be it racial/communal/caste based. Issues like this only come-up for public debate when politically convenient. There never seems to be a meaningful debate that goes on. Being an immigrant, it always seems to me that America’s actions are always justified, no matter what. Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of good things they do around the world but the image of this country has definitely taken a beating with what happened in Iraq. If looked in retrospect, America’s foreign policy has a lot to do with what is going on. And the funny thing about it is, the majority of the population has no clue about it.
Mr. Roach said
The racial problem in this country is a black behavior problem. There’s lots of earnest discussions about it, and liberals mostly blame “hidden racism,” but this is the essential reality. No liberal will admit this, and that’s why it’s an intellectually bankrupt philosophy. This behavior problem is the reason whites move to suburbs. It’s the reason blacks die so frequently in shootouts. It’s the reason blacks do worse in school, save less, have worse credit, and make neighborhoods less pleasant places to be. Some of this might be endemic, but black America, working with the same raw material, was not always this screwed up.
Yes, of course, there are many exceptions to this rule. There are decent, humane, polite, Christian, and civilized black people. But they are not so numerous as they should be (or once were) and, most important, they tend to make excuses for their less well behaved brothers and sisters. In positions of leadership, their pandering is immense. Notice Obama asks much of white America–support for affirmative action, understanding of Wright and his raucous church–but only asks blacks to believe that this terrible weight of oppression can be lifted by supporting him and his run-of-the-mill liberal program, uniting with whites to go after evil corporations.
Jeremiah Wright denies this black behavior problem exists and projects the various deficiencies, disorders, and hatreds of the black community on whites. He has to justify this rampant all-consuming hatred–hatred he foments every Sunday–with something, so he creates and recreates a bogeyman: the legions of white racists who continue to hold down black people. There is much smoke here, but almost no fire.
Barack says, in effect, Wright’s is a correct analysis of the problem. Blacks at worst exacerbate or contribute to their own racism-caused problems. But he also says there’s hope for change through something he wants us to forget we’ve been trying for thirty years: liberal government programs and white acknowledgement of their current and past racist actions, including such egregious sins as his grandmother being scared of thuggish young black men.
This is not a patriotic, humane, or sensible approach to the issue. It is, at best, the simulation of a courageous address about race. Obama falls back on the stale diagnosis and stale solutions of LBJ and the Great Society.
Mike E said
We don’t usually leave reactionary (and racist) posts long on this site (that is just not what Kasama’s discussion is about) — but in this case it is useful as an illustration of the larger point. Mr. Roach has expressed, clearly, exactly the set of assumptions and line of argumentation i was describing (and criticizing) above.
I particularly note that he says “decent, humane, polite, Christian, and civilized black people” are “exceptions to the rule.” (And god forbid that “white America” should be asked tolerate the “raucus church” exposed in all the video clips of Wright’s church!)
Anon said
Mike, Roach is a catholic. As any good ex-catholic should know (myself included) they’re never allowed to make any such “raucus” during homily and such.
Jealousy perhaps?
Winslie Gomez said
Mike E
I am glad you have allowed Mr Roach a platform, because although my first reaction is ire. It does the discussion well to hear what people like him have to say, as we need to understand the mindset.
He(Mr Roach) voices terms that are normally inert and understood by the collective “white” community, even here in UK.
This blog, along with others allow us to offer an alternative to “how to think ” as in your article above.
tellnolies said
This is a fine breakdown of the whole Wright affair, but I think its a little too tidy.
Mike writes:
It is certainly true that elections serve to indoctrinate the people and legitimize the system, that they frame a range of “acceptable” debate and demonize what falls outside of that frame. But I think we have to look closer at the mechamisms of HOW they do this and ask ourselves if there aren’t other important functions at work here. There are several points I’d like to make here:
1. The struggles that occur WITHIN the frame established by the ruling class are not simply some sort of Kabuki theater behind which all the “real” decisions are made. The electoral process is a REAL arena of struggle between different fractions and perspectives within the ruling class. Those struggles involve alliances not just between various ruling class fractions but with other organized forces (unions, professional associations, religious groups, racial/ethnic organizations, etc…). It is through the electoral process that candidates not only demonstrate their loyalty to the larger frame but also their ability to forge broad alliances that will keep a critical mass of potentially discontented folks inside that frame as well.
2. The “frame” is not immutable but is itself an object of struggle both within the ruling class and on the part of popular forces. The ruling class would rather that none of the candidates had to promise to withdraw from Iraq. That is not an option. So they instead seek to impose standards of “reasonable” withdrawal that will allow the war and occupation to in fact continue. This is a response to mass opposition and struggle against the war. If the ruling class didn’t allow some sort of anti-war discourse into the electoral process it would seriously compromise the legitimizing function.
3. It matters which ruling class clique prevails. The different cliques represent different strategies for dealing with popular struggles and their respective triumphs and defeats have different effects on the morale of such movements.
Which brings us to Obama….
The whole Rev. Wright affair neatly illustrates the ways that elections are not just a one way street. It is absolutely true that Wright’s on-target characterizations of US imperialism have been ruled outside the frame of acceptable discourse by everybody from Bill O’Reilly to Jon Stewart. At the same time there has been a significant pushback in certain places. While most people at Daily Kos were agreed that Wright’s comments were bad for Obama, there was considerable debate there over whether or not what he said was actually wrong.
Several positions emerged:
1. What Wright said WAS terrible and the more clearly Obama broke with it the better;
2. At least some of the things Wright was being attacked for saying were correct but political expediency demands that Obama distance himself; and
3. Wright was mainly on target and it is precisely the fact that Obama would be a member of such a church that is attractive about him in spite of the compromises he has to make to get elected.
The point here is that even with Obama ritualistically denouncing Wright’s words (though not the man) one of the outcomes of this whole affair has actually been to carve out some space in which folks have felt free to uphold those words. It may well turn out that the Wright affair will be fatal for Obama, but this is not a certainty and I think the assumption that it is allows us to evade really grappling with the implications of the Obama phenomena.
It is fine to have a general critique of how elections function within this system, but we should not confuse such a critique with a specific analysis of a particular election. The success of the Obama campaign demands a specific analysis of why the system is, all of a sudden, willing to seriously contemplate having someone like Obama in the White House. The question here is NOT primarily one of his policy positions which we all know are largely indistinguishable from those of Clinton. The question is the sorts of hopes an expectations he has already unleashed and that his election would likely bring out much more intensely. On one level of course this reinvest legitimacy into the system, but it does so by taking a real risk in awakening whole sections of people to political life.
I think we need to see Obama’s viability as an expression of a real crisis of legitimacy arising from a whole constellation of developments over the past seven years. Bush has done serious damage to both the domestic and international legitimacy of US imperialism and Obama success reflects the view of a major fraction of the ruling class that some old patterns must now be broken if that legitimacy is to be regained.
Our attitude towards this as revolutionaries must go beyond simply exposing Obama and seek to understand the way in which this move is a gamble that involves real risks for the system.
Mike has rightly written elsewhere that the base of the Democratic Party includes huge sections of the people that we need to win to revolutionary politics. I would suggest that this even more the case when one looks at the Obama campaign which has really tapped into the hunger of millions of people to be part of a movement. We can’t predict precisely how everything will go down or what the resulting trajectories of all the people who’ve been drawn into Obama’s campaign will be, but I do think its reasonable to expect that whether he gets the nomination or not (and I think he will) and whether he wins the General Election or not (and I think he can) that the contradictions between the desires of the base of the Democratic Party which are being projected on to Obama, and the logic of US imperialism will soone ror later produce painful disappointments that revolutionaries will be able to speak to … if we have peoples’ ears.
That last piece is a big “if” though and I think we need to really get beyond oversimplifications of how the electoral system actually works if we want to develop analyses that will really persuade people.
tellnolies said
A simple question for people here:
Would you rather try to build a revolutionary movement in the US over the next 4 to 8 years with Obama in the White House or with McCain?
I think the answer is obvious. An Obama victory will lead all sorts of people who aren’t politically active yet to think that their grievances and demands have a shot at getting a hearing whereas a McCain victory will profoundly demoralize many people who are already politically active and will confirm many who aren’t in the view that it is all pointless.
While there were many factors that contributed to the explosions of the 60s, one aspect was undoubtedly the hopes raised by JFK’s election. It took years for the actual contradictions of the system to turn those hopes into revolutioanry ones.
I think that at a very basic level that in order for revolutionary politics to have a shot it requires a schism in the Democratic Party between the base and the commanding heights. But this schism won’t happen so long as the Republicans retain control of the White House and the Democratic Party remains a plausible vehicle for making things better. It is precisely when the Dems are in power that the real limitations of relying on them come out sharply and large sections of the people become potentially receptive to more radical or revolutionary politics.
We are potentially entering a period of very sharp economic dislocation in the midst of an unpopular war that for various geostrategic reasons the ruling class can’t really afford to get out of. As these contradictions play out having Obama as president will make it much harder to convince people that “if only we elected somebody else, THEY would solve it” and easier to argue that we need to really go outside of the existing system.
redflags said
I don’t think the answer is obvious… because Tellnolies, the question you pose is not the real one.
I’m curious what “revolutionary organizing” is going on when people who have class consciousness choose to become flank-minders for charismatic imperial politicians.
Seriously.
I work for an institution that has invested mightily in the Democratic Party. Money, volunteers, backroom schmoozing. Etc.
Do the people who run the unions, NGOs, activist networks and so on who broker the labor and commitment of their base EVER turn back around to deploy these same bases that they are (supposedly) “in touch” with? Or do they themselves become constituency honchos far more in touch with the exigencies of power and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie than people who honestly hope for change?
What happened to all those “Marxist-Leninists” who went whole-hog into the Rainbow Coalition?
I would argue they totally dissolved, worked to isolate non-compliant revolutionaries (actively), took jobs and positions as constituency hustlers, got “reasonable” and basically threw away a good chunk of the organized revolutionaries left over from the upsurge only a few short years before that.
Let me make two points:
1) Obama has made clear Palestinaians can die. They can rot. They have no political rights and Israel will continue to get Apache helicopters to shoot at will into civilian areas under total lock-down. 100%. He knows the job he is auditioning for.
For those who say Obama is better: I want a list of who’s life can be written off. So far we know Obama’s list of untermenchen includes Palestinians, Arabs in general and Pashtuns.
I’d like the untermenchen list, before we proceed. (And acknowlegment, followed by justification is beside the point. I want the list of who can die so “we” can pander.)
I ask: when people who understand that there is an imperial system go to work convincing us to (frankly) tail the illusions of the masses, what work is actually being done by whom to “change the terms”?
2) Obama has plenty of money from Goldman Sachs and other heroes of hope and change.
This election is looking different in my estimation from what we’ve seen before. I think the system is in deep crisis, and simply moralizing at friends and comrades over their own desperation, delusion and (again, frankly) accomodation is not the point.
What should people who want more actually be doing?
For my own self, I am compeled to assist in Democratic campaign efforts as the price of my job. It does not feel like hope or change. It feels like I’m right in the middle of how we as masses of people are literally ordered and forced to align with one faction or another of the ruling class. That so many view recognition of oppression as “better” says much more about our aspirations than the program of the ruler in waiting.
SIDENOTE: I remember quite vividly a friend voting for Bill Clinton in the first election she was able to cast a ballot in. The “real” reason she voted Democratic, it was explained at the time, was to support Carol Mosley-Braun, who turned out to be a totally corrupt and conservative Clintonite hack. But she was the “first black woman senator from Illinois” and all that bullshit.
Bill Clinton went on to immediately continue the sanctions regime against Iraq, killing at least 500,000 children. All those so-called socialists, radicals and “revolutionaries” who “understood” what the election was about had jackshit to say or do about those deaths. There was no antiwar movement when Democrats were in power and destroyed the human infrastructure of Iraq.
My friend literally voted for that, for reasons of the very sort that Tellnolies gives us above updated for the 21st Century. ANY response to what the program of these parties is, or what our responsibilities should be in breaking the imperial consensus is answered pretty consistently that these basic facts “beside the point” and my mention of it “ultra-left moralizing.”
Right.
Don’t we have enough people telling us what we can’t do/have to do/must learn to accept?
I’d much rather discuss some responses to the imperialist infighting than how to position ourselves within it.
I think arguments for Obama by people who think they have a different program are about adjusting the comfort level of accommodation and not honest politics. [And by “honest politics” I don’t mean willful deceit. I mean being honest with oneself, really.]
Mike E said
There are many questions you have raised in your posts, tellnolies, that I think should be at the center of things we debate here on Kasama for the next months.
And there are a great many things I agree with in your earlier post (the one that suggested I had been a bit too “tidy” in my assessment of the Obama-Wright discussion — and which then laid out a number of contradictions I had not addressed.)
In many ways I want to revisit areas of agreement (in order to have them clarified): the importance of traveling “with people” as they learn through practice, the importance of macro-political events and movements (in the formation of potential radicalization processes), the necessity not to arrive with detailed verdicts and prejudices in full display, the importance of not “assuming” that things really “mean” what they always meant or lead where they always led….
* * * * *
But for the moment, TNL asks:
And then TNL adds: “I think the answer is obvious.”
On the contrary, i think it is not obvious at all. It is not obvious to me that this is a question we should be asking — nor is it obvious that it has an answer.
I think it matters if a fascist regime gets imposed in a country (and if the legal basis for oppositional activity gets reversed). And in such cases, there can be needs to make a particular current (i.e. Hitler etc.) a particular focus of political struggle.
But I don’t believe that “fascism vs. legal space” is really the emerging “choice” here (and this has been, of course, part of the dispute with the RCP’s CCW analysis).
Some people support Obama because they think his administration would be “better,” but that does not seem to be TNL’s argument. TNL seems to suggest (forgive me if I misunderstand or simplify) that we should prefer Obama in power because it is better conditions for revealing that the Dems are NOT better. And if we assume these assumptions are true (which I don’t), does this then suggest a path of critical support for Obama because only this will help expose him as “not really better”?
* * * * *
And often the idea that we have a “preference” leads to the idea that we have a stake. And that leads to a very slippery slope.
In particular, I am leering of political logic (which i am not associating with TNL) that starts to think “by lending our weight on the preferred side” we can help to create the outcome that is better for our project (i.e. revolution).
This is particularly dubious when our political weight is not in the tens of millions (and therefore not hefty in any sense). Do we really influence the outcome by acting on a preference? No. The main impact of these tactical choices are their potential impact on the existance of revolutionary forces, and their ability to attract.
There is danger that a tenuous revolutionary existence will dissipate (not grow by) merging (critically or not) into Democratic campaigns. Here is a bathtub drain we have watched little political projects disappear into (over and over)…
Put another way: amid all the things I agree with in TNL’s notes, I find there is not any real consideration of the dangers of cooptation or of the kinds of paralysis that arise from having “your” candidate win.
In fact that liberal administrations (Johnson, Carter, Clintion) have often had a kind of “honeymoon” with discontent grassroots forces that often don’t simply dissipate. (It obviously dissipated for Johnson — that’s one historical example…. but the Clinton years drew all kinds of people, who “should know better,” into supporting the war on the Balkans in the 90s. Think of who supported Jimmy Carter’s “Human Rights” campaign, which proved to be objectively a ramp up to the Reagan restoration of U.S. global confidence and offensive.
Far more may be maintained by conducting a principled and nuanced practice of public exposure and revolutionary analysis (coupled with pressing forward on faultlines in society and just mass demands around the system’s crimes). By nuanced here, i am suggesting a mass line, and attention to the real conditions of the political moment.
One analysis TNL makes:
The first sentence is correct, and needs to be explored a great deal.
The second sentence (this schism won’t happen so long as….) is full of assumptions…. who says this is true? Based on what?
The exposure of Johnson (1964-68) involved him being IN power. But the collapse of the Whigs (before the Civil War) involved their inability to pose an opposing program TO power. (There was an historic moment before the civil war where the inability of the Whig Party to challenge the slaveocracy (the Democrats) led to their shattering, and the emergence of an objectively revolutionary Republican Party of Fremont and Lincoln.)
In other words, perhaps it the program the Dems campaign on becomes our best opportunity to reveal “the real limitations of relying on them” — perhaps perhaps it is THERE that their framework comes out sharply (in their soon-to-be-revealed ambivalence for withdrawal…. their private-insurance dogmas around healthcare….
Does America really need less partisan hatred of the Republican right? Does it need a White House able to “bring Democrats, Republicans and Independents together to get things done”? Does America really need a “coming together” (to heel the wounds of these conflicts going back to the 1960s)? Or does it need a resolution to those conflicts and a historic defeat of the reactionary and racist forces? Does America need to “improve” its face to the world? Cooperate better with its allies? Does it need a better plan for stablizing Afghanistan and “getting Bin Laden” in Pakistan?
Is that “change you can believe in”? Is it change at all?
Think about what the Democratic program is ACTUALLY going to be (in these presidential election) regardless of who the nominee is?
Think about the pirate ship people are climbing on.
Now people may end up disillusioned by this (if the war remains a driving sore, and the Democrats escalate), or a whole generation may end up much better trained in raw imperialist assumptions and politics.
* * * * * *
Was that true during the Lewinsky affair? Perhaps the national politics takes the form of the right pressuring and attacking a liberal administration (which is imperialist/capitalist in its own ways)…. who says that this dynamic is more open to schism? who says that the actual political dynamics lead people to want to “walk a different path”?
Why get tied to rigid assumptions about how the schism must “happen”? And then on THAT basis argue for critical support for Obama (which is, I assume, what we are debating).
I tend to think that we need to remain connected to the real living issues facing people in these debates and movements (i.e. not be dismissive, cranky, superficial or self-righteous), but maintain an important principled and critical difference from actual politics that draw people twoard a *whole liberal program* of “strengthening America.”
And then, on another level, I’m not convinced that “we” need to fully agree on this — but may find that an ongoing, living, public, thoughtful, substantive radical debate over these matters is the best way to shed light and draw others in.
Chuck Morse said
I think that those are very good and relevant points, redflags. … we know that tellnolies hates anarchism (which is bad, bad, bad, very bad bad bad!) and never thought that Maoism was adequate, but is very excited by Obama (whom he voted for). Hmm… what’s going on here?
I personally find it amusing to read tellnolies celebrate Obama in one post and, in another, righteously proclaim that “anarchism. . . cedes leadership to bourgeois reformism and becomes its militant wing.” . .. who is “ceding leadership to bourgeois reformism”??
The strategy seems to be: rhetorical reverence for the great history of Marxist-Leninism and practical support for right-wing Democrats. Lovely.
Mike E said
Moderator note:
I would prefer if you dug into the issues here, Chuck, rather than trying to score personal points at TNL’s expense. Not interesting — we walk away not even knowing how you think through these controversies. We can guess (by inference) you don’t like supporting Obama … and?
You ask “What is going on here?” Well that is what we are discussing, and I hope that discussion goes a lot deeper.
Millions of progressive people have been swept into Obama-land, and much of the “left” will follow them. How should revolutionaries creatively engage all that? With a morally scornful tone — as if the truth is obvious and as if illusions are “complicity”?
How has that worked for us so far?
If in these discussions, each of us just references our verdicts (in fixed way), then what is gained? It’s the old story of “heat but no light.”
Chuck Morse said
I see your point, Mike, but I’m actually not trying to score personal points with TNL. I share redflags’s position (as I understand it) of the issues at hand and my goal in my comment was to point out what I see as the political logic of TNL’s position. Rhetorical revolutionism combined with practical reformism is (unfortunately) quite common on the left.
Tellnolies said
[response to redflags] An impassioned and eloquent evasion of the questions posed.
Is anyone here really unaware of the imperialist nature of the Democratic Party, of what this has meant for the Palestinians, of the vast machinery of hackery attached to the Democratic Party and its capacity to absorb progressive activists?
Lets stipulate this and get past all the boilerplate moralizing (and yes it is moralizing) to an actual analysis of what is happening around this election right now.
There is a perverse logic that says that because the elections have a legitimizing function that every individual who votes is thereby “legitimizing the system” and that therefore any analysis of the particular dynamics of an election that might lead one to vote or otherwise participate in the electoral process must be immediately headed off at the pass. The result of this is an all-sizes abstentionism that has the same thing to say about every election and every candidate. It is an approach that has yet to produce a serious revolutionary movement in a single country with even nominally competitive elections, let alone actually make a revolution.
Has the Democratic Party gobbled up revolutionaries? Sure. In the face of Reaganism much of the New Communist Movement essentially dissolved itself into the Rainbow Coalition. (A side point worth noting is that FRSO went in and came out intact.) But many of the SDS kids who went “Part of the Way With LBJ” in 1964 were committed revolutionaries by 1968. The question for us is not whether there are dangers in engaging the electoral arena, but rather what is our assessment of the particular situation we are in today.
My assessment is that there isn’t a revolutionary movement to speak of in the United States and that imagining that our refusal to vote somehow deprives the system of legitimacy is self-deluding. We are all presently operating within a framework determined by imperialist infighting, whether we acknowledge it or not. Whether we vote or not we will still be at the mercy of the results, not just in the sense of which face is representing the empire, but in terms of the morale of the masses. And so will all the “untermenchen” of US imperialism. Does anybody here really think that their refusal to vote has somehow raised up their circumstances?
I’m old enough to remember the Jackson campaign, to remember its essentially defensive posture in the face of the vigorous neo-liberal assault that was Reaganism. My response then was that the task was to keep the flame of revolutionary purity alive and to refuse to be tainted by the associations with the Democratic Party. In retrospect I wonder if that was right, but frankly it was a time of retreat.
This is a different moment. In strictly organizational terms the revolutionary left is in even worse shape, but the system is in a very different place. From Bear Stearns to Baghdad, neoliberalism is exhausting itself. Like it or not, millions of people who are truly fed up have been organized into the Obama campaign and NOT World Can’t Wait. Unlike Redflags most of those people are not operating under orders — they are volunteers. Abstentionism at this moment deliberately puts an obstacle in the way of really relating to those people, it locks us into a hostile relationship to their choice to act on their hopes. Its really more of a way of keeping ourselves sealed off than a way to make breakthroughs.
Mike E said
Not as a moderator:
Chuck writes:
Yes. True. Agreed.
How do we respond to that? What is our alternative? What do we say both to that “left” and to the broader millions who embrace their “practical reformism” straight up (without any “revolutionism” in sight)?
I think your are wrong to imply that TNL’s are simply hypocrisy, or rhetoric covering a slide into reformism. I think he sees this as a long march — where we unite with people “where they are” and then accompany them on that journey (through unforseen but expected crises in their illusions.)
I tend to think TNL underestimates the value of an open revolutionary politics all along the way, exposure of the fundamental nature of the Democrats, and that he may be too literally uniting “where they are.”
I think we need to engage people’s sentiments “where they are” while being careful of adopting their illusions or reinforcing them (i.e. being coopted by this political vortex, the “art of the possible” that makes Tom Haydens of far too many people.)
Big L said
“Abstentionism at this moment deliberately puts an obstacle in the way of really relating to those people, it locks us into a hostile relationship to their choice to act on their hopes. Its really more of a way of keeping ourselves sealed off than a way to make breakthroughs.”
I’m a bit confused – do you mean that individually abstaining from voting seals us off from the masses of people who ARE voting? Or do you mean abstaining from actively campaigning for Obama?
The point isn’t what we all do as individuals on election day – that’s our personal business and IMHO has little to no effect on whether or not a radical, revolutionary movement and organization is being built.
I don’t have a problem with acknowledging the positive aspect to people becoming politicized around Obama because it speaks to their dissatisfaction with the system, and in particular with its present incarnate. But actively campaigning for him is not something I would do because there is also the negative aspect (which has been discussed) which has to do with how folks are trained to express their discontent.
I don’t believe that we’re reduced to the binary of supporting the campaign for Obama or simply saying (as the RCP has tended to do) that Obama is nothing more than a new face on the same system. We do need to be traveling with people and going to “where they’re at”, but the problem is that so often we leave people “where they’re at.” We do have to reach out to them (and also learn from them) but IMHO it’s our duty as revolutionaries to also challenge them (in a pedagogical as opposed to moralistic way) to deepen their consciousness and understanding of things – and to begin considering what it will actually take to win radical, progressive, and revolutionary change.
zerohour said
“Abstentionism at this moment deliberately puts an obstacle in the way of really relating to those people, it locks us into a hostile relationship to their choice to act on their hopes. Its really more of a way of keeping ourselves sealed off than a way to make breakthroughs.”
Tellnolies -
I’m not sure what you’re advocating here. I agree that it is wrong to berate people for voting, but how does the act of voting create a means for relating to people that is any better than not voting? By nature, voting is an atomistic act. Are you suggesting that revolutionaries should mobilize in favor of a candidate, or work with an electoral party in some other capacity? Or is it that being able to say you voted makes it more likely people will speak with you?
Not being hostile, just asking for some clarity.
redflags said
I think it’s wrong to berate people in general for voting. But for TNL and our common ilk, it’s almost as if he were… asking for it?
Is the choice campaigning (not voting, btw) for Obama and the Dems or “abstention”?
Really?
Chuck Morse said
Mike, I think that you raise good questions. TNL argues that “we” should support Obama in order ‘really relate to those millions of people organized into the Obama campaign’ (I’m paraphrasing). But “relate” to them toward what end? TNL hates anarchism and is down on Maoism (as I mentioned), so what would TNL want “us” to do once “we” are no longer “sealed off” from those millions?
In my view, the Obama campaign has significance only in so far as it represents a reconfiguration of racial discourse in the United States. And, on that account, it is significant (although ultimately less significant than the longstanding transformations in racial discourse in popular culture).
But so, given that, how should revolutionaries respond? As was pointed out here, there needs to be a dramatic reformulation of the way that radicals deal with these questions. Anarchists and Maoists (among others) have a serious deficit in this regard. However, there is one area in which the extreme left tends to be pretty insightful and that is in its position on the Democratic Party. In my opinion, we should continue to articulate those insights (especially given the various crises is that we see around us).
redflags said
One way of approaching this question might be to look at the work that various activists, leaders and movement intellectuals who told us to vote Democratic in ‘06 have done since to “relate” to the Democrats’ immediate tabling of impeachment, the escalation of the occupation in Iraq, the Miliatry Commissions act that suspended habeus corpus and Israel’s literal destruction of Lebanon…. and America’s truly historic levels of incarceration.
It’s not like these questions are happening in a bubble.
I want to understand.
Mike E said
note from moderator:
In response to Redflags: “I think it’s wrong to berate people in general for voting. But for TNL and our common ilk, it’s almost as if he were… asking for it?”
I think we should actually have an ongoing discussion about how to relate to this election that will not assume anyone is “asking for” berating or scorn. The assumption that we have a “common ilk” and that we all know what that “ilk” should think will not help us through this.
I don’t think we can “come to” the many very-difficult discussions we need to have assuming that the answers are well known (because in fact, many of our “well known” answers are precisely what need to be critically examined.)
And as should be well known, I say this as someone (ahem) “inclined” toward an absentionist position.
The question of elections, abstention, the Democrats and voting have ALWAYS been a controversial question, and will be all the way through.
Blast from the past: Bill Hinton split from the early RU in part, i believe, over the question of supporting McGovern 1972. I listened to James Foreman (a leader of SNCC who helped create early Maoist group Black Workers Congress) insisted that it was our internationalist DUTY to work for McGovern (and that he had personally been told this by leaders of the Vietnamese Workers Party then waging peoples war). And then the rather-revolution-minded Jane Fonda came though (with her Indochina Peace Campaign) with their “main blow against Nixon” approach, arguing that the Vietnamese were breaking under the pressure and McGovern was a needed vehicle for quickly ending the war. And so on…
For twenty years, the RCP largely abstained from “taking sides” in bourgeois disputes. In one presidential election, its cadre went out on election day with a gigantic toilet bowl to urge people to throw paper “ballots” into it. But there were exceptions: after Watergate, the RU organized a “throw the bum out campaign” to unite with the mass anti-Nixon sentiment (while opposing the calls among other communists to support the “impeachment” of Nixon). And then (after 9/11) the RCP switched to a “main blow against the crew in power” approach — “Drive out the Bush Regime” (and association with impeachment). Avakian has openly said he would not rule out supporting one candidate over another in all situations (one place this was first discussed in his memoirs over the McGovern 1972 issue).
And meanwhile, various other trends have been energetic in their embrace of various forms of electoral work: Some with symbolic campaigns of socialist candidates (or Nader). Others are full bore for left Democrats (from Jesse Jackson to Obama).
But through all of this, has there ever been an open many-sided debate of this among revolutionaries. Why can’t we have one? Don’t we need one? And don’t we need a culture of theory and debate where such exchanges are normal, rich, expected and ongoing?
Tellnolies said
First, I should be clear that my comment above was in response to Redflags and was written before I read Mike and Chuck’s responses.
Second, I really appreciate having a forum where this stuff can be really argued out. My own thinking is very much in flux and I appreciate Mike’s attention to encouraging us not to come to the table with all our verdicts already decided.
In response to Mike:
I posed the question about which was preferable because I do think that an Obama presidency will make for a more hospitable environment. I understand that this is not “obvious” to everybody, but it seems obvious to me.
I think we are facing a moment much closer in character to 1960 or 1964 than to 1992. I take the point about the Whigs, but I simply don’t see the Dems as occupying such a position yet and the vitality of Obama’s campaign is one reason why. If Clinton steals the nomination from Obama of course that might change.
My views are actually a hybrid of the two positions Mike identifies. I think there is actually an element of the “fascism” vs. “legal space” choice at work here, even if I don’t think the formulation of “fascism” is precise. I think rather that neoliberalism demands an increasingly authoritarian political regime and that the Obama campaign does actually represent some pushback against this within the ruling class. (McCain voted for waterboarding while Obama has called for closing Guantanamo.) But I also think that there is a contradiction between Obama and the Dems commitment to the continuation of neoliberalism and their revulsion against the increasing resort to authoritarian methods. That is to say that it will be very hard to walk back all the repressive innovations of the Bush era without sparking an explosion of popular anger that has been kept tamped down by fear. So in this sense I think an Obama regime will be different and probably in some ways “better” than a McCain regime (just as LBJ was probably better than Goldwater) but that the big take home will be the realization of the inadequacy of the Dems.
I think the dangers of cooptation are quite real. I’ve seen it happen over and over in my life. And there is of course the real possibility that a President Obama might be successful in navigating the dangers facing the empire. I think there really is a slippery slope from thinking one candidate is preferable to having a stake in him. And that is where some of my ambivalence comes from. At the same time I think the posture taken by Redflags and Chuck has also proven to be a dead end.
I am also highly suspicious of “sharpen the contradictions” arguments that say that because McCain will be more rigid and make things worse that this will drive people to revolutionary politics. If Obama can save the system from its own contradictions like FDR did, this seems to me more a testimony to the weakness of revolutionary forces than an argument for why a McCain presidency would be more auspicious.
I voted for Obama and I’ve put that out mainly as a provocation, not because I think revolutionaries should all now flood (or trickle) into the Obama campaign, but because I think we need to talk about it at a different level than we have been. One of the reasons I haven’t called for people to just jump in is precisely because I don’t imagine that the little weight we have to add is actually likely to matter in the election anyway. I think the point of getting involved should be precisely to build relations with the other people who eight months from now won’t be working for a candidate but will presumably still be horrified by the war and all the rest of the shit this system produces.
Finally, I don’t think I underestimate the importance of open and explicit revolutionary work. I think its critical.
redflags said
What if this is a referendum on whether this will be a “white republic”, or some sort of “post-settler” America?
Could these actually be the terms?
And to go back to the Clinton/Bush Sr. election… though some certainly argued there were profound differences, they were clearly not of the kind we are confronted with now.
Does Obama’s actual platform matter? Or McCain’s?
Are the only forms of engagement abstention or (effective) subordination?
saoirse said
If this is a referendum on whether this will be a “white republic”, or some sort of “post-settler” America (I dont necessarily agree with the formula but I appreciate that this is part of what is on the table) than what role are we to play?
Every election I’ve read a broad range of articles and position paper from left organizations of every strip. I do believe there are more “forms of engagement (from) abstention or (effective) subordination,” the later of which is not how I see it. And yet when I read most leftist responses to the Obama speech and his candidacy I feel like I’m reading what every left group says about every democrat during every election.
At some basic level I hunger for (a) more a through investigation into what’s happening in this particular time frame in world history and (b) some sense that we’re not turning tactics into program (c) learning from our shortcomings and mistakes.
And on another basic level I feel like Obama’s speech confronted “the white republic” and this challenge is apart of my program of change in this country. For reasons TNL has stated his candidacy is pushing at part of the way our country has been ruled. People are responding to this. Republicans are responding to this. I want a left/revolutionary response that responds to this.
If in fact this whole thing (revolutionaries line on Obama, elections where we are at and where we are going has been worked out already by folks on this site) please just say that. This is certainly the vibe I’ve always gotten from much of the revolutionary left in the US with one or two exceptions. I had hopes that we were about pushing at some of these orthodoxies and challenging ourselves to come up with something more.
saoirse said
Sorry. I would definitely unite with RF assestment of what a democrat means for the people of Palestine in the short term. Nothing good. However I do think it is worth investigating what Obama means for the people of Iraq and particularly the resistance movement there.
I reduction of forces. Pulling back to the green zone. Even a redeployment of forcs in Afghanistan. I think its worthwhile to engage what this will mean for anti-imperialist forces and resistant fighters across the region. I’m not suggestion I have a worked out line here, suggesting, oh look at all the potential, but I do think there are things worth looking at.
Tellnolies said
If this a referendum on whether this will be a “white republic”, or some sort of “post-settler” America, what would it mean to abstain or even to not actively campaign?
I’m not sure if this is a correct formulation, but if it is it poses a sharp question to us.
zerohour said
“I think the point of getting involved should be precisely to build relations with the other people who eight months from now won’t be working for a candidate but will presumably still be horrified by the war and all the rest of the shit this system produces.”
This was one of the reasons I was initially attracted to World Can’t Wait. They seemed to recognize that the Democratic Party base represented a desire for progressive, sometimes social democratic, change at odds with the Party leadership. This would provide revolutionaries a vehicle to engage electorally minded people in the process of doing common work opposing the Bush regime.
Many on this forum have criticized WCW for its reformism, hedging on “impeachment” and overall lack of strategy for a post-Bush world. On one level, the problem is RCP-specific in that it reflects the problem of making opposition to “Christian fascism” its key driving force. At the same time, it reflects a general confusion among revolutionaries about how to continue working with this base to develop an alternative non-electoral politics.
Mike E said
RedFlags and TNL both raised this question:
We need to get our finger firmly on this pulse, and then think very hard about what that means. Let me say some things that are not intended to be polemical in regard anything just said:
1) Let’s not fuck around naively about this question of “referendum on a white republic”" Clearly, without a doubt, for millions of people, it will be such a referendum. In fact it already is.
Clearly, significant sections of the Republican apparatus will work to make the elections (as much as they can) into such a referendum. And the furor over Wright, Ferraro’s repeated interjections, and Clinton’s now-notorious South Carolina remarks show the pull of those dynamics already, even within the Democratic primaries. Latest example: Ed Rendell (Democrat Governor of Pennsylvania and a hateful hangman from the Mumia saga) announced as part of the pre-primary fighting: “You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.” (I.e. Democrats will lose such a referendum and should not nominate a Black man.)
Simultaneously, it will be such a referendum for Black people (and already is).
Once Obama became a “serious contender” (by winning caucus votes in the overwhelmingly-white Iowa), the Black elected “political establishment” had little choice but to “come over” from their first choice (the Clinton camp). And part of the reason is that the broad masses of Black people (and Black voters) will assume that racial views will have a decisive effect on who votes for or against Obama.
And those same pressures are on revolutionaries already: If you stand up and say that Obama (the first nominated Black candidate for president in the U.S.) is not radical enough for you, that his election will not be a big enough change to justify you voting for him — many many Black people will suspect you are nuts if you are Black, and will suspect you are secretly racist if you are not Black (not matter what your other political credentials say).
I think many many people won’t give a flying fuck what the details of Obama’s program are. (Meaning: He could be Colin Powell, and generate interest from Black people.)
Why? Because many people believe it would be a huge change in this country (in how it works and thinks) if it had a Black president. And they thought the same when the question of Black mayors came up in Atlanta, LA, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York etc. The end of the October 22 movement (as a mass movement and growing coalition) in New York City was connected to the Dinkins campaign (where the communists said “we won’t support Dinkins” who ultimately became NYC’s first Black mayor, while most everyone else said “are you out of your mind? this may be our best chance ever to change the New York police.”)
For many people, politics is symbolic — and the symbolic power of a Black president is that the (still lingering, still felt, still hurtful) myths of inherent Black inferiority are socially repudiated. (And in some ways it will be a referendum on THAT, not just on the political question of a “white peoples republic.”)
Many people think that if you have a Black guy at the top, business-as-usual can’t happen at the bottom. That the standard racist assumptions (by cop, or principal, or teacher…) that a black kid is just scum, less than human, without a voice in affairs, that you have no one to call on and no chance of a sympathetic ear in high places — that those racist assumptions are affected (though obviously not reversed) by having Black people in key places in the power structure.
And even if that is not completely true, millions of Black people think that is true, and millions of white racists think so too.
And more, millions of Black people think electing a Black president is AT LEAST worth the chance — worth a try, worth a vote, worth an expression of support. They think Obama is obviously risking his life by trying this. They see (and mainly respect) that he has shown an ability to reach far beyond a single nationality — in a way Jackson’s Rainbow never could. (Meaning that all the talk about “not black enough” was paper thin, and mainly a cover for Hillary support.) And millions of Black people think that the very least a progressive anti-racist person can do is give him support (in order for all of us to SEE if that will work).
And note: I am saying this as some one who thinks we should NOT support Obama (not critically, not conditionally).
I am just trying sketching out our terrain, with a clear eye. “What is subjective for the people, is objective for us.” — i.e. the views of the people around us are part of the “objective conditions” we have to both deeply understand in its dynamic nature and then work creatively to transform.
We didn’t have to “support Martin Luther King” to be part of a greatly radicalized scene when he was shot. We didn’t have to think Robert Kennedy was a progressive, in order to politically grow from the disillusionment of his followers. But we (speaking broadly of revolutionaries from SDS to the Panthers) did need to connect with those people in motion, in ways deeply symbolic and visceral (not just formally programmatic, in line with the fetish of the word).
2) Theoretically we have to grasp better this question of “from white republic to post-settler America.” (Which is not how I think the transition looks).
My (slowly congealing and still tentative view) is that the U.S. has not been defined by unchanging categories (defined by us previously as “nations” and “nationality.”)
There has been an African American nation (more precisely a historically constituted community or distinct people emerging in the Deep South from the experience of slavery, betrayal of reconstruction, Jim Crow and then largely dispersed to proletarian life in urban America.)
But there has not simply been a “white nation” from the beginning. There as an Anglo-American nationality, that became an Anglo-Saxon nationality (with the slow inclusion of Germans), that became a White America (with the further inclusion of Jews, Italians and other “white ethnics” by mid-20th century).
At the time of the Haymarket events (late 1800s), Germans and Bohemians were still oppressed immigrant nationalities excluded from the dominant “WASP” nationality). In the 1920s, there was still an element of national oppression facing Jewish people (recently immigrated from Eastern Europe). Clearly in WW2, Japanese-descended citizens on the West Coast faced a vicious racist oppression not unleashed on the millions of German-Americans on the East Coast.
And so there has been an arc of transformation (and absorbtion) in how the oppression, inclusion, exclusion and stability of the U.S. worked.
And there is STRUGGLE right now over how to go forward rooted in major objective changes in the class and ethnic composition of the U.S.: to tighten the traditional caste and color lines, or to adopt a more “multicultural” sheen to the imperialist mother-country. And there are forces who want to do both! There is both a demand and an offering to include various “non-white” sections into the dominant “nationality” — including assimilated Asians, Chicanos and some Black/biracial people. (And the stress is on the “assimilated.”)
French imperialism always accepted the assimilated. That is a difference between traditional French racism (which was always rooted in raw cultural chauvinism and showed more acceptance for non-whites who were truly assimilated into French culture) and traditional Anglo racism (which in Africa or U.S. reacted to intimacy across color lines with an almost visceral disgust.)
The empire is entering “post settler America” in the sense that immigrants are no longer mainly coming from Europe — and so the integration of the Third World descendants (i.e. “non-white peoples”) is becoming a burning question. There was a fudge factor of a few decades, where they officially pretended “Hispanics” were “white” (not multiracial). There is now a very scattered patchwork of local accommodations on the U.S.’s historical “racial” approaches, confinements and taboos.
There is a real attempt by the ruling class to internalize a Third World proletariat (and keep them as Third world as possible in their superexploitation.) The competitiveness of the U.S. domestic market requires some creation, expansion and containment of a “real proletariat.” And Black workers have not proven sufficiently compliant in those needs. And the problem of all workers in the real proletariat (who are not confined by a “color line”) is that they “escape” over a generation or two into the middle class mainstream (leaving the U.S. with a renewed need for importing a bottom tier.)
And African American people suspect that when the smoke clears from this great new cultural struggle/shift, that they will find themselves (once again) on the bottom (and newer arrivals will have leapfrogged into “the mainstream” of honorary whiteness — or unhyphenated American-ness.) And an Obama presidency is a bid to avoid that fate — to put someone at that table (where immigration policy and other key changes will be decided) who, at one level or another, MAY have a sympathetic spot for Black folks.
We need to deal with what is objectively (culturally, politically) posed here — understand how the ruling class is debating THEIR crossroads, what is driving them, what their (opposing) visions of the U.S. are. What is the Clinton/Obama vision of multi-culturalism? What does McCain now represent in opposition? What does the core Republican Right think about having a man like McCain (who was for amnesty and has an adopted non-white child… be their standard-bearer into the storm.
And we need to understand how how a sword (a revolutionary movement) might pose a radically different way of cutting America’s filthy racist “Gordon’s knot.”
Maz said
Interesting. This discussion reminds me somewhat of Stuart Hall’s argument that race is a “floating signifier” that takes on different meanings in different contexts. It wouldn’t be impossible, as Mike hints at, that the meaning of “blackness” may change in America just as the meaning of whiteness has changed historically. Could there be a shift, say, from black skin/black hair as a signifier to say, dialect of english, way of dress? – Or more likely being integrated into a more stratified race discourse? When Bill O’Reilly made his now-infamous comments about being suprised at how respectable black people at Alicia’s in Harlem were, I think that what he was really getting across (even though I doubt he understood it himself) was that to his suprise, not all black people were actually black! I think this shift is already underway, as Mike points out in his distinction between the whole Hootie and the blowfish thing(though I would say a bigger example is Tiger Woods) compared to the impoverished and isolated black urban cores.
A think there is a risk of being one-sided when discussing the above aspect of French imperialism. Franz Fanon, for example, in describing his political evolution, remarked that he was at first shocked when he left his native Martinique for France, since he had long since self-identified as a Frenchmen, felt culturally French, but was devastated when white French refused to see him as such, solely because of their viewing of his “blackness.”
Mike E said
We can pin the French thing down with a framework of anecdotes: One is the Franz Fanon experience you cite (which is real!) and shows the limits of assimilation (and the unevenness of acceptance) — and exposes (as Fanon said) the lie that the colonies were “just external parts of France.”
But it remains true (to give the other anecdote) that when Black American soldiers went to France during World War 1, they could walk down the street on a white Frenchwoman’s arm in a way that would have meant death in America. And the shock of those differences had a profound impact on the U.S. (and the history of Black people).
“How can you keep them down on the farm, after they’ve seen Par-eeeeeeee?”
I think it is Richard Wright who creates a character who warns to never talk about what you saw in Paris, and what you did with white women there.
That “Left Bank” difference is why Black radicals of the post-world war generations went into exile in France (Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Billy Holliday, Nina Simone, the jazz greats…)
And that is why (stateside) the style of Black revolutionaries like the Panthers leaned toward French berets and goatees (in contrast to the Afro-centric style of dashikis etc.)
I am not saying “France isn’t racist.” My point is that the forms and lines of imperialist chauvinism vary with time and place. They have changed in the U.S. over its whole history, and the objective compulsions for new (still largely undecided) changes have been moving into place. The U.S. ruling class faces an increasingly non-white America. It is dealing with a young population that was not schooled under formal legal official segregation, with all that means (and doesn’t mean).
And the ruling class HAS TO deal with that, one way or another… not (as TNL correctly points out) as some unified “committee” that decides — but through the byzantine struggles and institutional bloodlettings that their system uses to work itself out.
Maz said
Of course, I agree here, my point was a mild note against one-sidedness. Also, the beret thing – never made that connection before, it always seemed strange to me until now.
Mike E said
Are we looking at a movement from “”from white republic to post-settler America.”
I don’t think that captures the terms correctly.
First this hasn’t (principally) been “Settler America” since the aftershocks of Wounded Knee. Because Sakai is wrong and undialectical (in his book “Setter, the myth of the white proletariat.”
We are facing a possible move from “A White-Dominated America to a More-Multicultural Imperialist Hegemon” — a transition that doesn’t sound progressive because it really isn’t.
The Obama candidacy attracts people (both Black and white) who want assimilation (and its assumptions) to become the norm. And I’m convinced we must not see this through the lens of the 60s (including a set of lingering Black nationalist assumptions). Things have changed and are changing.
Black people are more stratified than ever, because the break up of legal segregation has meant “integration for some.”
This is not to say that “Black people don’t, as a whole, face discrimination.” Black people in America (even a man of recent Kenyan descent) face all kinds of insults and dangers (despite the lie that Ferraro asserts about Blackness being an advantage in a politically correct America!)
But those oppressions have changed (and diversified) once Black people weren’t literally CONFINED to one part of town, or to a caste-like existence (literally excluded from many spheres of society). The transformation of the Black middle class (and the assimilation of parts of it — the Hooty and the Blowfish phenom) is part of that picture. Much of that oppression is much more sharply and murderously concentrated on a large hard-core impoverished section among Black people — which is isolated in historically unprecedented ways.
more to say later…
Nil said
So. Granted: Obama is mobilizing a movement of people interested in radical solutions (whether they realize it in those words or not, those in movement for Obama are encoraging in many ways).
Assume: If Obama is elected, these people will find themselves dissapointed. (I’m not actually sure this is true. hmm. what do you think?)
Question: Will that disappointment in fact lead to more radicalization, to a more radical movement that realizes that reformist electoral politics are insufficient? Or will it instead lead to individuals demoralized, depolitisized, hopeless, having realized that even when they win they don’t win.
So the real question: What can we do to make the former more likely rather than the latter? In fact, whether Obama wins or not, and whether that will _neccesarily_ leads to dissapointment or not—what can we do to take advantage of the political moment of movement, to make it more likely that these people in movement will end up in and supporting revolutionary movement?
I’m not sure what the answer is. But it’s a far more important, useful, and interesting question then whether to campaign for or vote for the latest menu option offered by the Democratic party.
Nil said
[And maybe it doesn't matter, but I'd also note that I agree with everything Mike E says in this thread in general, and specifically about the (changing) nature of race in the US, EXCEPT the random diss of Sakai. I still can't figure out what Mike's got against Sakai, since to me everything he says is more or less consistent with the theoretical analysis I learned from Sakai. But it's probably more interesting to leave arguing about some other person out of it, and just talk about what's up, in which case I'm with Mike.]
tellnolies said
Nil asks “what can we do to take advantage of the political moment of movement, to make it more likely that these people in movement will end up in and supporting revolutionary movement?”
It seems to me that the most elementary thing we need to do is to actually get to know “these people in movement.” We also need to be getting to know the people who are helping propel them into movement.
One of the things that complicates how we relate to the Obama campaign is the fact that it is systematically training thousands of mainly young people as organizers. These are people we should be getting to know not as statistical aggregates but as people with names and favorite bands and the like. Many of them will be on campuses or taking jobs in community organizations and unions over the next few years. In many cases this will probably be the beginning of their careers as future Democratic Party hacks and/or as perpetual non-profit staffers. But if things do sharpen in the coming years some of these people will become receptive to revolutionary politics and will bring with thems skill sets and networks that will be hugely valuable to a revolutionary movement.
As far as I’m concerned this is the most compelling argument for actually getting involved in the campaign: the elementary need to know who is who and what the real dynamics within it are actually like, to make friends and contacts, to really accompany people through this process so that what we have to say is grounded in the reality of their experiences.
Tahawus said
Mumia’s sharp commentary on the Wright controversy – http://www.prisonradio.org/MumiaObamaPreacher.htm
tellnolies said
Just to add fuel to the fire, here’s a piece that just appeared in The Nation:
tellnolies said
Oops. I should make clear that by posting this I’m not upholding the analysis contained within. In fact I disagree strongly with a good part of it. But I do think the discssion of how we understand Obama is a thousand times more important than any further discussion of Bob Avakian.
Here it is:
Progressives for Obama
Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher Jr., Danny Glover & Barbara Ehrenreich
All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama. We descend from the proud tradition of independent social movements that have made America a more just and democratic country. We believe that the movement today supporting Barack Obama continues this great tradition of grassroots participation, drawing millions of people out of apathy and into participation in the decisions that affect all our lives. We believe that Barack Obama’s very biography reflects the positive potential of the globalization process that also contains such grave threats to our democracy when shaped only by the narrow interests of private corporations in an unregulated global marketplace. We should instead be globalizing the values of equality, a living wage and environmental sustainability in the new world order, not hoping our deepest concerns will be protected by trickle-down economics or charitable billionaires. By its very existence, the Obama campaign will stimulate a vision of globalization from below.
As progressives, we believe this sudden and unexpected new movement is just what America needs. The future has arrived. The alternative would mean a return to the dismal status quo party politics that has failed so far to deliver peace, healthcare, full employment and effective answers to crises like global warming.
During past progressive peaks in our political history–the late thirties, the early sixties–social movements have provided the relentless pressure and innovative ideas that allowed centrist leaders to embrace visionary solutions. We find ourselves in just such a situation today.
We intend to join and engage with our brothers and sisters in the vast rainbow of social movements to come together in support of Obama’s unprecedented campaign and candidacy. Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined.
Progressives can make a difference in close primary races like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon and Puerto Rico and in the November general election. We can contribute our dollars. We have the proven online capacity to reach millions of swing voters in the primary and general election. We can and will defend Obama against negative attacks from any quarter. We will seek Green support against the claim of some that there are no real differences between Obama and McCain. We will criticize any efforts by Democratic superdelegates to suppress the winner of the popular and delegate votes, or to legitimize the flawed elections in Michigan and Florida. We will make our agenda known at the Democratic National Convention and fight for a platform emphasizing progressive priorities as the path to victory.
Obama’s March 18 speech on racism was as great a speech as ever given by a presidential candidate, revealing a philosophical depth, personal authenticity, and political intelligence that should convince any but the hardest of ideologues that he carries unmatched leadership potentials for overcoming the divide-and-conquer tactics that have sundered Americans since the first slaves arrived here in chains.
Only words? What words they were.
However, the fact that Barack Obama openly defines himself as a centrist invites the formation of this progressive force within his coalition. Anything less could allow his eventual drift towards the right as the general election approaches. It was the industrial strikes and radical organizers in the 1930s who pushed Roosevelt to support the New Deal. It was the civil rights and student movements that brought about voting rights legislation under Lyndon Johnson and propelled Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy’s antiwar campaigns. It was the original Earth Day that led Richard Nixon to sign environmental laws. And it will be the Obama movement that will make it necessary and possible to end the war in Iraq, renew our economy with a populist emphasis, and confront the challenge of global warming.
We should not only keep the pressure on but also connect the issues that Barack Obama has made central to his campaign into an overarching progressive vision.
• The Iraq War must end as rapidly as possible, not in five years.
All our troops must be withdrawn. Diplomacy and trade must replace further military occupation or military escalation into Iran and Pakistan. We should not stop urging Barack Obama to avoid leaving American advisers behind in Iraq in a counterinsurgency quagmire like Afghanistan today or Central America in the 1970s and 1980s. Nor should he simply transfer American combat troops from the quagmire in Iraq to the quagmire in Afghanistan.
• Iraq cannot be separated from our economic crisis.
Iraq is costing trillions of dollars that should be invested in jobs, universal healthcare, education, housing and public works here at home. Our own Gulf Coast requires the attention and funds now spent on Gulf oil.
• Iraq cannot be separated from our energy crisis.
We are spending an unheard-of $100/barrel for oil. We are officially committed to wars over oil supplies far into the future. We instead need a war against global warming and for energy independence from Middle Eastern police states and multinational corporations.
Progressives should support Obama’s sixteen-month combat troop withdrawal plan in comparison to Clinton’s open-ended one, and demand that both candidates avoid a slide into four more years of low-visibility counterinsurgency.
The Democratic candidates should listen more to the blunt advice of the voters instead of the timid talk of their national security advisers. Two-thirds of American voters, and a much higher percentage of Democrats, oppose this war and favor withdrawal in less than two years, nearly half of them in less than one year. The same percentage believe the war has had a negative effect on life in the United States, while only 15 percent believe the war has been positive. Without this solid peace sentiment, neither Obama nor Clinton would be taking the stands they do today.
Further, the battered and abused people of Iraq favor an American withdrawal by a 70 percent margin.
The American government’s arrogant defiance of these strong popular majorities in both America and Iraq should be ended this November by a powerful peace mandate.
The profound transition from the policies of the past will not be easy, and fortunately the Obama campaign is lifted by the fresh wind of change. We seek not only to change the faces in high places, however, but to save our country from slow death by greed, status quo politics and loss of vision. The status quo cannot stand much longer, neither that of politics-as-usual nor that of our security, energy and economic policies. We are stealing from the next generation’s future, and living on borrowed time.
The Bush Administration has replaced the cold war with the “war on terrorism,” led by the same military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against. The reality and public fear of terrorism today is no less real than fear of communism and nuclear annihilation a generation ago. But we simply cannot continue multiple military interventions in many Muslim countries without increasing the vast number of violent jihadists against us, bleeding our military and our economy, becoming more dependent on Middle East oil, creating unsavory alliances with police states, shrinking our own civil liberties and putting ourselves at permanent risk of another 9/11 attack.
We need a brave turn towards peace and conflict resolution in the Middle East and the Muslim world. Getting out of Iraq, sponsoring a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, ending alliances with police states in the Arab world, unilaterally initiating real energy independence and moving the world away from the global warming crises are the steps that must be taken.
Nor can we impose NAFTA-style trade agreements on so many nations that seek only to control their own national resources and economic destinies. We cannot globalize corporate and financial power over democratic values and institutions. Since the Clinton Administration pushed through NAFTA against the Democratic majority in Congress, one Latin American nation after another has elected progressive governments that reject US trade deals and hegemony. We are isolated in Latin America by our cold war and drug war crusades, by the $500 million counterinsurgency in Columbia, support for the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela and the ineffectual blockade of Cuba. We need to return to the Good Neighbor policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, policies that rejected Yankee military intervention and accepted Mexico’s right to nationalize its oil in the face of industry opposition. The pursuit of NAFTA-style trade policies inflames our immigration crisis as well, by uprooting countless campesinos who inevitably seek low-wage jobs north of the border in order to survive. We need balanced and democratically approved trade agreements that focus on the needs of workers, consumers and the environment. The Banana Republic is a retail chain, not an American colony protected by the Monroe Doctrine.
We are pleased that Hillary Clinton has been responsive to the tide of voter opinion this year, and we applaud the possibility of at last electing an American woman President. But progressives should be disturbed by her duplicitous positions on Iraq and NAFTA. She still denies that her 2002 vote for legislation that was called the war authorization bill was a vote for war authorization. She now promises to “end the war” but will not set a timeline for combat troop withdrawal, and remains committed to leaving tens of thousands of counter-terrorism troops and trainers in Iraq amidst a sectarian conflict. While Obama needs to clarify his own position on counterinsurgency, Clinton’s “end the war” rhetoric conceals an open commitment to keep American troops in Iraq until all our ill-defined enemies are defeated–a treadmill that guarantees only the spawning of more enemies. On NAFTA, she claims to have opposed the trade deal behind closed doors when she was first lady. But the public record, and documents recently disclosed in response to litigation, prove that she was a cheerleader for NAFTA against the strong opposition of rank-and-file Democrats. The Clintons ushered in the Wall Street Democrats whose deregulation ethos has widened inequality while leaving millions of Americans without their rightful protections against market shocks.
Clinton’s most bizarre claim is that Obama is unqualified to be commander-in-chief. Clinton herself never served in the military, and has no experience in the armed services apart from the Senate armed services committee. Her husband had no military experience before becoming President. In fact, he was a draft opponent during Vietnam, a stance we respected. She was the first lady, and he the governor, of one of our smallest states. They brought no more experience, and arguably less, to the White House than Obama would in 2009.
We take very seriously the argument that Americans should elect a first woman President, and we abhor the surfacing of sexism in this supposedly post-feminist era. But none of us would vote for Condoleezza Rice as either the first woman or first African-American President. We regret that the choice divides so many progressive friends and allies, but believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a Clinton presidency all over again, not a triumph of feminism but a restoration of the aging, power-driven Wall Street Democratic hawks at a moment when so much more fresh imagination is possible and needed. A Clinton victory could only be achieved by the dashing of hope among millions of young people on whom a better future depends. The style of the Clintons’ attacks on Obama, which are likely to escalate as her chances of winning decline, already risks losing too many Democratic and independent voters in November. We believe that the Hillary Clinton of 1968 would be an Obama volunteer today, just as she once marched in the snows of New Hampshire for Eugene McCarthy against the Democratic establishment.
We did not foresee the exciting social movement that is the Obama campaign. Many of us supported other candidates, or waited skeptically as weeks and months passed. But the closeness of the race makes it imperative that everyone on the sidelines, everyone in doubt, everyone vascillating, everyone fearing betrayals and the blasting of hope, everyone quarreling over political correctness, must join this fight to the finish. Not since Robert Kennedy’s 1968 campaign has there been a passion to imagine the world anew like the passion and unprecedented numbers of people mobilized in this campaign. For more information, go to Progressives for Obama.com.
redflags said
Another friend just wrote this:
I think its the most important progressive speech I’ve heard an American politican make in my lifetime. Its setting off a dialogue I’ve never heard in my life time amongst a broad section of people. Irregardless of his limitations I think we need to bring our A game to engage not only Reverend Wright’s words (never mind who he represents) but also Obamas.