Kasama

Non-dogmatic…fiercely revolutionary

Post Obama: the Sad Union of Anti-Imperialists with Imperialists

Posted by Mike E on November 9, 2008

Who is the hunter and who is the hound

In political alliances: Who is the hunter and who is the hound?

 

The following appeared on countercurrents, with the original title: A Paradigm Shift In America’s Intellectual Community. Thanks to RWHarvey for pointing this out.

“The new era of voting for the lesser of the two evils has penetrated the core of America’s critical intellectual community, and some of the biggest voices for change have endorsed Obama. In effect, what has taken place is the union between those opposed to imperial ideology and those endorsing it…. the cynicism seemed to have vanished and the hope of a new American century was reborn with full force, to the clapping thunder and joyous splendour of the reborn American people. With every word uttered by Obama one could see how the empire was not gone, Bush almost killed it, now Obama the symbol of hope, together with all the American people in unity, are going to reconstruct their country and the world, restabilising America’s faltering hegemony. ”

By Pablo Ouziel

06 November, 2008

Contrary to popular belief, the big change in America’s society stemming from the recent presidential elections, was not the election of the first black president. The most important event has taken place in the intellectual community, in which a paradigm shift has taken place and few have noticed.

The new era of voting for the lesser of the two evils has penetrated the core of America’s critical intellectual community, and some of the biggest voices for change have endorsed Obama. In effect, what has taken place is the union between those opposed to imperial ideology and those endorsing it. Although this serious event has gone largely unnoticed, American intellectuals will need to reflect on its consequences seriously if they are to contribute to the building of a stable future for humanity as a whole, and in particular to mending the tarnished corrupt fabric of American society.

One American intellectual, James Petras, has been able to identify the direct social consequences of such a paradigm shift and prior to the elections has publicly expressed his views in an article titled; The Elections and the Responsibility of the Intellectual to Speak Truth to Power: Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney.

As the title of the article clearly states, Petras voices the reasons why intellectuals have the responsibility of voting against Obama just like they should vote against McCain. In regards to those intellectuals who have endorsed Obama he says:

“They are what C. Wright Mills called ‘crackpot realists’, abdicating their responsibility as critical intellectuals. In purporting to support the ‘lesser evil’ they are promoting the ‘greater evil’: The continuation of four more years of deepening recession, colonial wars and popular alienation.”

After listening last night to Obama’s first speech after his victory, a victory he said was of the people, what Petras is saying seems disturbingly accurate when looked at through the prism of critical discourse analysis. One can look back now to the presidency of George W. Bush and listen to his rhetoric. What has been his message throughout the last 8 years? When Obama’s core messages are compared to Bush’s, it becomes apparent that the coming presidential plans are not too different to current presidential policies.

Even more disturbing, is the fact that when Bush spoke throughout his presidency there was always a slight cynical reaction by the majority of the public, as most of the surveys have shown time and time again. However, last night the cynicism seemed to have vanished and the hope of a new American century was reborn with full force, to the clapping thunder and joyous splendour of the reborn American people. With every word uttered by Obama one could see how the empire was not gone, Bush almost killed it, now Obama the symbol of hope, together with all the American people in unity, are going to reconstruct their country and the world, restabilising America’s faltering hegemony.

For those in the struggle against imperial expansion, the task ahead is going to prove daunting. Perhaps the echoed endorsement of the new presidency by some of the world’s most public intellectuals is going to set back the struggle for true justice, in the sense that although voting without ‘illusions’, a landslide victory has been handed out to Obama by millions of delusional Americans. Expect more bailouts of the economic elite, expect the war drums to continue, expect more people to lose their homes and jobs. Keep organizing at the grassroots level because millions of Americans are going to need help, like the billions of people around the world who year after year ravaged by the smiling face of capitalist imperialism, have been shouting out and had their voices ignored.

The essence of capitalism in the twenty-first century is one of popular misery, thunderous war, and smiling politicians, as the global elites struggle to save pieces of their crumbling cake. In the middle of this chaos there is room for ‘hope’, there is certainly no ‘illusion’, and respect must go to Ralph Nader for fighting on and James Petras for speaking truth to power. As for the paradigm shift faced by America’s intellectual community, strong choices must be made and a new generation of intellectuals must begin to drive critical thinking into a more serious and coherent direction, if humanity as a whole, is to overcome the obstacles it faces.

Pablo Ouziel is a sociologist and freelance writer

21 Responses to “Post Obama: the Sad Union of Anti-Imperialists with Imperialists”

  1. Gary Leupp said

    “…Petra voices the reasons why intellectuals have the responsibility of voting against Obama just like they should vote against McCain.”

    I’m an intellectual who didn’t vote for Nader or McKinney, or anyone at all, which is to say, I didn’t vote for the system. Petras is right about Obama, but not right about the system, which he still thinks the intellectual has a “responsibility” to validate through the ritual of casting a ballot (even while knowing that the flow of money to two ideologically near-identical parties and the shaping of public opinion through the semi-controlled press in the hands of five corporations rule out the election of a third party candidate)…

    Some intellectuals (I see this in my own immediate environment) have been caught up in the excitement of a black man being elected as president: “the realization of the dream.” And among the African-American community in general, which is no more astute than the population as a whole about history and geography and contemporary events, it may well be that a continuation of the course in Iraq and Afghanistan and even a more confrontational stance towards Iraq and Pakistan by a black president will meet with acceptance in some “liberal” quarters where triumphantalism will reign for awhile. Radicals (especially white radicals) may even catch flack for getting down on Obama for being just as much an imperialist as his predecessors. Although of course we have to be. The question is, how to understand (and to some extent maybe even unite with) the genuine joy millions feel at Obama’s election while sharply criticizing such ominous moves as the selection of extreme Zionist Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff and the press conference comment the other day about Iran’s (non-existent) nuclear weapons program?

  2. redflags said

    This divides out, how exactly remains to be seen. There is a significant section of the American left that is not particularly left at all. From supporting Israel and the evisceration of Afghanistan to a practiced indifference to the embargo against Cuba, support for Taiwan, occupation of Korea and CIA games in South America – imperialism is not something they oppose in any identifiable or tangible way. Lip service will be paid at the height of popular struggle against the latest atrocity, but only insofar as is necessary to claim the bonafides of “opposition.”

    I truly wonder how many self-described progressives would support a candidate and party that treated Jews in anything approaching the way that Muslims and Arabs are. If we want to talk about realpolitik, let’s get real.

    Calling for support without illusions is for support without even the promise of return. It is about shoring up and supporting America’s rebranding as an unreconstructed imperial entity. The history of this is real.

    When FDR promised a New Deal, he delivered – for some. That lynch law would rule in the South was just taken as a given by significant sections of the then self-styled democratic left. Democracy was a funny thing, and Jim Crow was off the table for generations. Imperialism grew by leaps and bounds throughout Latin America with virtually no opposition.

    We will see how this shakes out. But I’ve already seen the crowing from former leftists overcome with joy in their now acceptable identification with the state. The relief of millions at this popular repudiation of the Bush regime is now held up as a justification for supporting the actual program of Obama. Sorry Palestine, eat dirt. You don’t count, get with the program. There may be grumbling, but any talk of “pressure” on Obama is frankly bullshit. His left supporters will apply the only pressure they can: to their left, and from the top down. Just as UFPJ did great service in denouncing anti-imperialists and supporters of Palestine – that is to say those organized forces who actually oppose the war! – we can get ready for a new round. Except this time, we will get to watch the liberals play the Karl Rove rhetoric that opposing empire is “elitist” or, to use the progressive parlance – “privileged.”

    That’s right, kids. It will be a sign of privilege to oppose imperialism, personal moral tic born of what Tim Wise has already called “cynicism.” Relevance will be determined by the acceptable parameters of the state. We will be told that “we” are in a “coalition” with the “community organizer in chief”. And I fear that that when the nominally progressive left shuts down, which is already has despite its manic activity for the Democrats, that only the far right will actually be out there on the ground in opposition. And they will grow, while the “left” sits around justifying imperialism and calling that “pressure”.

  3. Mike E said

    Like Gary, I believe that we legitimize this system NOT only when we support one of the major imperialist candidates, but also when we participate in their electoral process itself.

    I think that an argument can be made that revolutionaries can run candidate that promote revolutionary and socialist solutions — that there are openings to exploit (during election seasons) and that we can reach new audiences. And certainly we need to exploit openings and reach new audiences! But I have never been convinced that running candidates in the bourgeois elections help us reach anyone — and in many ways the form defines the content…. people view you, running in these elections, as somehow a validation of those elections (even if your words and fine print say something different).

    I also thought that the actual numbers this year give a sense of something else: by participating in the elections, under the conditions set down, you allow the system to portray your politics as utterly marginalized (because the very logic of voting in a winner-take all system ultimately pushed voters toward the lesser evil, not “vote my conscience to speak truth to power.”)

    Here is the break down for all of the presidential candidates for comrades who are curious. (Note to our international readers: in the u.s. system the ballots, even for the presidency are established locally, since the elections are officially the election of electors by state to the electoral college. That means that the various minor candidates were often only on the ballot in a few states, not nationally).

    1. Barack Obama: 63,347,841 – 52% [Democratic Party]
    2. John McCain: 56,010,091 – 46% [Republican Party]
    3. Ralph Nader: 651,135 – 1% [independent]
    4. Bobb Barr: 486,037 – 1% [Libertarian Party]
    5. Chuck Baldwin: 173,595 [Constitution Party]
    6. Cynthia McKinney: 140,467 [Green Party]
    7. Alan Keyes: 34,531 [America's Independent Party]
    8. Ron Paul: 19,285 [non-candidate that was put on the ballot]
    9. Gloria La Riva: 7,175 [Party for Socialism & Liberation]
    10: Roger Calero: 7,115 [Socialist Workers Party]
    11. Brian Moore: 6,372 [Socialist Party]
    12. None of these candidates: 6,251
    13. Richard Duncan: 3,672 [independent]
    14. Harris: 2,381 [couldn't find out who this guy was with]
    15. Charles Jay: 2,306 [Boston Tea Party]
    16. John Polachek: 1,212 [New Party]
    17. Jeffrey Wamboldt: 766 [We The People]
    18. Frank McEnulty: 739 [New American Independent Party]
    19. Thomas Stevens: 682 [Objectivist Party]
    20. Gene Amondson: 631 [Prohibition Party]
    21. Jeffrey Boss: 602 [independent]
    22. Tedd Weill: 470 [Reform Party]
    23. George Phillies: 447 [renegade Libertarian]
    24. Jonathan Allen: 277 [independent]
    25. Bradford Lyttle: 97 [U.S. Pacifist Party]

    *SPECIAL NOTE: There were also a ton of write in candidates. I’m
    listing them below. No word yet on the votes they got. The only
    thing of note about the list is that there is one socialist candidate
    among them – Jerry White of the Socialist Equality Party [formerly
    known as the Workers League]. For some reasons, unlike in the past,
    they didn’t petition to get on the ballot in any state – instead they
    mounted a last minute write-in campaign. Anyway, here, in
    alphabetical order, are the write in candidates – everyone from
    Fascists to Vampires!

    -Stephen P. “Steve” Adams (independent-Kentucky)
    -Donald K. Allen (independent-Ohio)
    -Blake Ashby (independent-Missouri)
    -Lawson Mitchell Bone (independent-Tennessee)
    -John K. Bootie (independent-Pennsylvania)
    -Clark B. Braxton (independent-California)
    -Richard H. Clark (independent-Maryland)
    -Don Cordell (independent-California)
    -Orion Karl Daley (Balanced Party-New York)
    -Christopher J. Dardzinski (Write In-Michigan)
    -Michael David Elder (independent-Texas)
    -Cris Ericson (Marijuana Party-Vermont)
    -Michael L. Faith (independent-Ohio)
    -Nick Farmer (Write In-Indiana)
    -Quay Fortuna (Ward Republic Party-Iowa)
    -Ronald “John Galt Jr.” Gascon (independent-Pennsylvania)
    -Mark B. Graham (independent-Florida)
    -Pete Grasso (independent-Virginia)
    -Jack Grimes (United Fascist Union-Pennsylvania)
    -Leonard C. Habermehl (independent-Kentucky)
    -RaeDeen Heupel (independent-North Dakota)
    -Thaddaus Hill (Madisonian Federalist Party-Texas)
    -Ronald Hobbs (independent-Pennsylvania)
    -Brian Holland (National Socialist Movement-Virginia)
    -Yonyuth Hongsakaphadana (independent-Connecticut)
    -William “Bill” Ingram (independent-North Carolina)
    -Paul Jensen (Independent American-Michigan)
    -Rob Jorgensen (independent-North Carolina)
    -Keith Russell Judd (independent-New Mexico)
    -Daniel Kingrey (independent-New Hampshire)
    -Steve Kissing (independent-Ohio)
    -David Koch (independent-Utah)
    -William R. “Bill” Koenig (independent-Virginia)
    -Lou Kujawski (independent-Ohio)
    -Elvena E. Lloyd-Duffie (independent-Illinois)
    -Brad Lord-Leutwyler (independent-Nevada)
    -James E. Lundeen (independent-Ohio)
    -Joe Martyniuk (independent-Illinois)
    -West Marcus (independent-Alabama)
    -Charles Maxham (Give Me Back America Party-New Jersey)
    -James McCall (independent-Ohio)
    -Tom Millican (independent-North Carolina)
    -Robert Milnes (independent-New Jersey)
    -Phillip W. Morrow (independent-Texas)
    -James Mote (independent-?)
    -Kevin Mottus (independent-California)
    -Gary Nettles (independent-Florida)
    -Jeff “Petro” Petkevicius (independent-Louisiana)
    -John Leroy Plemons (independent-Indiana)
    -Desmond Ravenstone (independent-Massachusetts)
    -Arthur J. Regan (independent-Massachusetts)
    -Platt Robertson (independent-Nevada)
    -”Average Joe” Schriner (independent-Ohio)
    -Edward N. Schwarz (Youth International Party-New York)
    -Jonathon “The Impaler” Sharkey (Vampire, Witches & Pagan Party-NJ)
    -Charles Symonds (independent-California)
    -Diane Templin (American-California)
    -Da Vid (Light Party-California)
    -Lanakila Washington (Humanist Party-New York)
    -Jerry White (Socialist Equality Party-Michigan)
    -Ruth Bryant White (independent-Nevada)
    -Kelcey Wilson (independent-California)

  4. Keith said

    Pablo Ouziel is on to something but mostly misses it. The paradigm shift is not the penetration of the “lesser of two evils strategy.” It is a generational shift. It is the end of baby boomer hegemony.

    Pablo Ouziel analysis is off because he still takes Nader seriously after the rest of the country realized that he is a clown. Maybe Nader will spend his remaining years struggling for a backseat airbag. I would vote for Obama over Mckinney or Nader if they were running head to head and my vote were the only one that counted. In other words I would rather a president Obama than Nader.

    Instead of crying about Obama we would be better served by analyzing the revolutionary left and why it has been a spectacular failure since the 1970s. Results matter.

  5. Mike E said

    Jed paints a grim picture:

    “That’s right, kids. It will be a sign of privilege to oppose imperialism, personal moral tic born of what Tim Wise has already called “cynicism.” Relevance will be determined by the acceptable parameters of the state. We will be told that “we” are in a “coalition” with the “community organizer in chief”. And I fear that that when the nominally progressive left shuts down, which is already has despite its manic activity for the Democrats, that only the far right will actually be out there on the ground in opposition. And they will grow, while the “left” sits around justifying imperialism and calling that “pressure”.”

    And it is a picture resting on the truth. Let me ask about the part missing from the picture: Us. And the sections of the people who will become restless (whose dreams will be yet again deferred.)

    What do we do?

    I think we speak about afghanistan — since i suspect the Obama administration may be about to do what Powell did at the UN…. make a public case to the world for escalation. And I think we find the ways to connect deeply with the situation of immigrants…. because the silence of the Obama campaign on the elections bespeaks the deep contradictions in the ruling class over this issue.

    And I think we speak about the errors of Black patriotism. I was really disturbed by reports of black students breaking out into the Star Spangled Banner, or Maya Angelou speaking on Larry King about how great this country has proven to be, or Beyonce putting on red-white-and-blue spike heels to say “i have never felt more patriotic.” There has been a trend of Black patriotism growing (since 9/11’s “we are now Americans under attack too,” since the volunteer army with its model for post-racial America, since the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment) which is tied in profound ways with reactionary politics and aspirations (a mix of anti-foreigner xenophobia and “we want in” view of getting over). How do we speak to that — including as it ripens and rots, as it reveals its hatred of the lower classes among Black people, its distain for the youth and their lack of responsibility….?

    I think we need to identify the faultlines where this honeymoon will break down. We need to unite with the excited aspirations that the world (and this place) COULD be better, and with the realization that politics and power are the road to change (not entrepreneurial self-improvement, education and “getting paid”). and we need to have confidence that this system will reveal itself, and that sections of the people will be looking for ways to fight for real changes.

    I want to raise the old maoist slogan “Going against the tide is a Marxist-Leninist principle” — meaning that there are many times in political life when the people (and even sections of communists) get swept up in some bullshit…. where out of great motives and sincere intentions they get onboard “a pirate ship” thinking it will take them where they want to go. We need to have a very careful and thoughtful understanding of how we respond to those moments (which inevitably will come, again and again, as the people learn through experience in complex storms of politics). and part of that approach (that response) is that we must ourselves “dare to go against the tide” — we must not be swept away, we must not get disoriented just because the beloved people are going a certain way (for the moment!) and because there are giddy expectations (for the moment!)

    One important reference work we should study: the new book “Revolution at the Gates” gathers many of Lenin’s most important writings from 1917 — a time when there were many adverse currents, and many “waves” of political infatuation that swept over the people (as the Tsar fell, as the new bourgeois government arose, as sentiments of broad unity erupted, etc.) It is worth reading that book (and lenin’s works) as a way of understanding deeply how he dealt with that — and the changes in tactics and ways of speaking that it brought, literally day by day and week by week. He also speaks to this process of leading people to learn through experience in his work “Leftwing communism: Infantile Disorder” (whose valuable lessons which rightists have distorted, and many in the revolutionary communist movement have ignored.)

  6. El Companero said

    Referring to the question about presidential candidate James Harris’s political affiliation:

    To my knowledge James Harris ran as a Socialist Workers Party alternate candidate. As Roger Calero of the SWP is Guatemalan, some states will not permit those ineligible to be U.S. President to campaign for presidential office. Hence, Harris ran in states where Calero was legally ineligible to run.

  7. lunita said

    speaking of powell and intellectuals, can anyone believe he may be the new secretary of education?

    how can the intelligentsia possibly condone this war criminal pick???

    YIKES!!!

  8. Red Future said

    What do we do?

    I think we look for opportunities to arm the masses with a revolutionary viewpoint. It is better that Obama was elected than McCain because, while the recognized right is in power, people are left with the possible explanation that the problem is the neo-conservatives or the Christian right or the republicans and will more easily maintain their illusion that “if only a liberal or democrat were in power”.

    A revolutionary can only be trained through their real world experience. Obama’s presidency will provide experiences that, combined with consistent activity and advocacy of the best interests of the working class, communist agitation to highlight contradictions, and communist propaganda to provide a overall understanding, will be be an objective background for a growing revolutionary movement.

    I am reminded of the broad support for Johnson by the anti war left and the subsequent maturation of their world view in the face of Johnson’s inability to deliver on their hopes. I was in high school then and was radicalized largely by trying to really find an answer to the question: “Why can’t they just get out?”.

    These are important lessons that can bring people to a revolutionary viewpoint over the next four years:

    1. The US will still be racist (as evident by the economic disparity among the masses and having a black president and cultivating and spotlighting a black bourgeoisie will not change that. Big lessons about the relationship between class and race and about the systemic nature of racism will come out of that. Especially in a time of economic crisis when the living conditions of all of the working class will be reduced, but especially blacks, latinos and other national minorities.

    2. It is clear that the ruling class will not have the freedom to make real economic concessions to the “middle class” let alone the working class. People that think of Obama as an honest and well meaning guy will have to reconcile that with his inability to deliver. Communist agitation during that process will help people make a leap to a revolutionary viewpoint.

    3. A specific issue, for example, is the medical care system. How will people explain to themselves that, after 4 years, meaningful relief will not have been made? Some will excuse Obama because the pharma and insurance industries have so much money and are so entrenched. But, could not communist agitation train people through this to a deeper understanding of capitalism and the class forces and interests within that?

    4. Another specific issue is Iraq. Obama is at odds with most of the people that supported him on this in that he has not rejected imperialist intervention and seeks to maintain US control of this new US neo-colony. There are already articles in the press speaking to the impossibility even if his 18 month time-line for securing the country under the US installed compradore government and remove most US troops. Obama’s views on Afghanistan seem even more at odds with many of his supporters.

    5. Finally, political forces, like the pseudo-left intellectuals that supported and actively campaigned for Obama will be exposed through the course of real events to be the opportunists they are. This is where we are in a position to “go against the tide”. Fight for truth – Obama is the choice of the majority (the more pragmatic and the smarter sections) of the ruling class and acts in their interests. With time, and with consistent agitation and analysis, advanced forces will come to our view and respect our honest position now and appreciate the truth of our position as time plays out. And, they will learn and appreciate our communist analysis.

  9. land said

    Around black patriotism:

    It is not the first time that Maya Angelou has been on the stage supporting this government.

    When the immigrants turned out there were people who organized the marches with American flags and banners “We Support America too.” People didn’t exactly like it but they wanted to send a message they thought would win them allies. There is alot of debate about that now.

    The black students?

    I think the flags were most likely organized by the Democratic Party and unfortunately people supported this. So it is something to take seriouisly.

    I remember in the film Glory Denzel Washington said “I will fight your war but I will not carry your flag.” But he did end up picking up the flag. I

  10. redflags said

    Another prediction: people who know this isn’t enough don’t just need an analysis of why. They need a line of march, that isn’t merely a profile to cut but a way of being among the people. ANY analysis markedly divorced from organizing practice will get put in the pile of analysis already floating around.

    A friend said to me just the other day, “step it up.” She meant it, as advice and admonition.

  11. transprog said

    I have to agree with redflags and to the most part with red future. We need action formulated in long term strategy. One question that needs to be answered is where are all the Obama supporters going now? I’ve heard several predictions 1. that they will be brought onboard somehow with the Obama presidency (somehow remain part of his political machine, he wants to win again I’m sure) or 2. that they will have served their purpose and will be cast aside. Time will tell what happens but revolutionaries should have contingency plans for either occurrence if they want to draw on the most advanced from this group.

  12. Pablo Ouziel is a sociologist, but it’s clear he doesn’t know much about the United States; Petras knows a lot about Latin America, but he doesn’t have a clue about how to organize here for much of anything relevant to the working class, let alone socialism.

    What this election, its outcome, its battles and ebb and flow, and the engagement of the masses, has revealed the utter bankruptcy of the Trotskyist, anarchist and almost all of the Maoist left.

    I’ve made a good faith effort over the past few months to appeal to whatever uncorrupted (by the ‘left’ deviation) revolutionary theory may still persist among Kasama readers and posters, but without much luck. Even though some of you have made a break with Avakianism to greater or lesser degrees, most here still have a long way to go.

    The piece above is utterly useless in the actual class, national and popular democratic struggles in our country. What does it do, besides tell you to go campaign for Nader? It’s all about ‘taking positions’ and striking a pose ‘against imperialism’. It has nothing to do with organizing in the actual conditions of this imperialism, with the actual masses, and especially with what the actual masses actually think, however full of contradictions it is. Since it does none of that, it has nothing to point the way forward, to lay out a line of march.

    The real crisis is not in our country’s intellectual community. Whatever their problems, and they are legion, most of them got this election, and what to do, however limited their efforts, right. Pablo points out that they did, but he is in despair about it.

    The real crisis is in our country’s left, especially those belonging to organized socialist and anarchist groups with enough resources to put out their views. On the election, only the CCDS and CPUSA got it mostly right, mainly because they have some grasp on racism. it’s importance and how to deal with it. But they are rather small. DSA and, to a degree, FRSO, at least saw the importance of defeating McCain, although DSA managed to put out a wimpy statement without once mentioning race. The other 10-to-15 groups, with the larger majority of organized US socialists, communists and Marxists in them, failed miserably. They have nothing new or relevant to say. Only warmed over Trotsky from 1937-39. Some of them didn’t bother to say anything, especially the anarchists. Go to the sixty or more Indymedia sites, and you hardly see anything useful said besides macho bluster and shit-talk against the few postings I put up.

    That is the crisis. The upsurge of million of Obama volunteers in one of the most critical battles in our history as far as elections are concerned, a true historic milestone, from precisely the sectors you have all been trying to reach, and almost all that you have to say to them is ‘You’re deluded’ and ‘You’re wrong.’ ‘Obama is a capitalist!’

    If the question of mass action for the day was reform or revolution, socialism or capitalism NOW, you might have had a point.

    But it’s not, not even close, even with the financial crisis.

    Besides getting troops out of this or that country, you don’t even have a package of demands or structural reforms worthy of being put forward.

    But that’s the point I entered this discussion on some months ago. In a few days, I’ll submit a piece that I think offers a decent working hypothesis for the bumpy road ahead. If it’s worthy of discussion here, fine, I’ll take part. But from most of what I see here at this point, I’m just wasting my time and yours. There is a fully alive and engaged mass movement out there, that worked for Obama, likes him warts and all, is dubious of those around him, but is tired of ‘Kool-Aid’ insults from the sidelines. It’s in dire need of new organization, consolidation and discussion around vital issues, but it’s none of this stuff, and I plan to focus there instead.

  13. Keith said

    Carl is right. The crisis is among the left.

    As to the question of where the Obama supporters are going
    It might be useful to understand how the Obama movement is organized. They basically updated Lenin’s What is to be done for the twenty first century and used the most advanced communication technology to build a grassroots movement. The Conservative blog “Next Right” posted a good discussion of Obama’s organization within the context of young conservatives thinking about how to rebuild their movement. Next Right uses “Daily Kos” as their model. We should do the same. It is a bit like Kasama except discussions are focused on organizing and practice, with a concern for results and outcomes.

    In any event Obama’s camapign is transitioning their organization from campaigning to governance. Again they are doing what the left would be doing if we used our own theoretical tradition creatively. In other words, Obama’s website has more in common with Lenin’s what is to be done and where to begin then anything existing on the left.
    You might also take a look at the seriousness of the conservative bloggers and the debates they are having about the future of their party, and their actual plans to organize.

    Lenin’s “Where to begin” should be our model, except we don’t need a newspaper we need a website. If you look at Lenin’s plan to build an organization it is based on practice and the exchange of ideas about practice. If we had local circles of revolutionaries actually organizing and communicating through a website about PRACTICE, not half-baked dogmas, then we would be well on our way to building a national movement. Each local group could relate to Oabam and whatever else as they see fit and we can start to compare and learn form each others’ PRACTICE.

  14. nando said

    There is always a lot I don’t agree with in Keith’s comments…. but this is important:

    “Next Right uses “Daily Kos” as their model. We should do the same. It is a bit like Kasama except discussions are focused on organizing and practice, with a concern for results and outcomes.”

    I think this Kasama site needs to expand its focus toward organizing and practice — while maintaining its distinctive revolutionary politics. This may mean other changes, but clearly it is the direction we should be moving in.

  15. redflags said

    Carl, showing off your boss’s fat roll doesn’t mean you’re in the money, let alone demonstrate the bankruptcy of anyone. Then again, since Freddie Mac appears to be Obama’s hiring hall, and I suspect the phone isn’t exactly ringing off the hook at Progressives for Obama, perhaps talk of bankruptcy isn’t entirely inappropriate.

  16. N3wDay said

    I second Nando and Keith about the need to focus more on practice. There is a definite tendency for revolutionaries on this site to steer away from that discussion and talk about more abstract theoretical things. Understandably, it’s more fun and requires no commitment, but it’s not what we need to do right now.

    On a side, related note: there are plans for revamping the Kasama site, but we need help. So if anyone wants to get involved please email Kasamasite (at) yahoo.com

  17. Goodness, Redflags, if I was in it for the money, it wouldn’t be in this business for sure. I’d have stuck with straight up IT consulting, or selling chrome parts for 18-wheelers, the only serious money I ever made.

    No, it’s about a bankruptcy of fruitful ideas, and roads forward.

  18. nando said

    “There is a definite tendency for revolutionaries on this site to steer away from that discussion and talk about more abstract theoretical things. Understandably, it’s more fun and requires no commitment, but it’s not what we need to do right now.”

    I don’t agree with this, on many levels.

    first I don’t believe revolutionaries have “steered away” from discussion of practice — we have not yet started the public discussion of practice. We have, however, started the beginnings of political practice (including around both Mumia in Philadelphia, and around internationalist work around the revolutions in South Asia.)

    Second, I think it is very strange to imply that people discuss theory because “it’s more fun.” and equally strange to claim that it “requires no commitment.” Kasama has a developing theoretical project — and it requires a great deal of commitment. and a serious participation in the discussions here is an immportant contribution to that.

    But most odd is the assertion that theory is “not what we need to do right now.” No?

    How will we do meaningful practice if we don’t also create some breakthroughs in communist theory? What will that practice consist of?

    Practice without theory is quite blind, and fairly meaningless. And in our situation would mean adopting previous models uncritically — either reproducing the RCP-without-Avakian or some form of movementism (i.e. activism without revolutionary work), or a “red block” imitation of anarchist excitative “do it” politics, or whatever.

    I think we need to initiate political practice, and discuss it critically (as I said above). But really without a serious theoretical “reconception” of communist work, such practice will go nowhere.

    For example, I have always been very interested in the RCP’s work of developing political base areas in black and Latino housing projects (in Chicago, LA etc.) I think we can learn from the intention of “coming from within,” “combativity” and revolutionary that inspired those projects. But should we (can we) go restart one of those projects WITHOUT a deep theoretical summation of those earlier experiences?

    I am looking forward to the day when comrades who were central to the Nickersons effort finally speak — and help us sum up that (both practically but also theoretically). Was there a left economism that emerged from the “informal slogan”? what was the response among the people? Did the advanced come forward as communists, and if not, why not? What was the interaction with the street gangs in these communities — and the youth organized into gangs? How did communists walk the tightrope — neither colliding with the gangs nor tailing the gang life and ideology?

    So anyway, N3wday, I feel like denigrating our theoretical work (which we have barely STARTED), is to go off in a very wrong direction. Because it is precisely a big part of what we NEED right now — and (lets face it) many revolutionary activists don’t have ENOUGH commitment to this difficult fight for new revolutionary theory — in fact many don’t even yet have much conception about what that is.

  19. N3wDay said

    Nando,

    You’re right, I rushed to type without thinking through the implications and it came out in a way that was inappropriate. This is a multi-layered question and I made that assertion in a very one-sided way.

    I basically agree with what you’re saying.

  20. Tahawus said

    Not sure if anyone else caught CNN’s first post-election interview with Bush after his speech at the USS Intrepid but part of it was truly interesting. Asked to give his thoughts about Obama’s win he responded: You know many Americans never thought they would see this day, it is very important and will give people great hope in this system, that this system works.

    Food for thought.

  21. Mike E said

    Tahawus:

    And, significantly, this is the same conclusion that Obama hammered home at the opening of his victory speech in Chicago:

    “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.”

    It is an attempt to repackage America — deceptively and dangerously — for both internal and external consumption. And unraveling, exposing and refuting THAT claim, is an important part of how revolutionaries need to respond to this moment — it is a process that will take quite a while, and will advance in the context of people experiencing (directly) the ways in which this system has NOT changed.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>