He's the smartest sheep in the herd, too bad he's the black sheep of the herd. Chavez is keeping the drug prices low and that could count on foreign politics.

I wonder what money chavez used to win elections.. anyone ? I dont know, in my opinion revolution(s) could be fought done elections. Winning is a question or the amount of concentration and work being applied; what's wrong about having a znet political party and unite the left and the environmentalist together? give people small victories and they will marche. anyone?

There's a lot of talk here but basically it boils down to this:

You think I have an obligation to be more optimistic

Until I am more optimistic, I will be of no help to any left revolution.

You could have a point there about optimism. Nothing kills it like my periodic forays into American left politics, arrayed as it is in small sad collections of verbally abusive nutjobs, conspiracy theorists, elitists and margin fetishists. If I encountered a single, genuninely strategic person, it was long ago.

There is a note of ridicule in regard to wanting something tangible in the way of how and when on a leftist blog. But I read the Guardian articles about the BNP and had no trouble imagining their gaining traction in the midst of a crisis. They have a plan. For boring, empirical types like me, plans feed fantasies. And I really don't require all that much.

I agree that the lesser evil v. 3rd party thing is tiresome, mainly because its beginning, middle and end is insults. I had only mentioned it in passing as the single discernible instance where leftists deign to do anything incremental or electoral. I wish you had left it at that. Instead you trotted out your well-worn and frankly cheap Green = Racist canard that, along with your tendency to pathologize disagreement, temporarily renders you argumentatively inconsequential as well as unethical. You need to stop it.

I also think you should examine your conception of the black community as a repository of political wisdom akin to your own. It is reductive and patronizing. A majority of blacks still regard Clinton as a great friend though he was a great enemy in objective terms. Apart from a few black radicals, the majority who are politically active will doubtlessly march off the Hillary/Obama cliff like their white liberal counterparts. In short, they are really only marginally less ignorant and lost than everyone else. Your ideas about Kerry and everything stand on their own merit. Quit resorting to the false authority of the black community. I don't credit it anymore than I would if you quoted the Bible.

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to get into the lesser evil/third party thing. It is tiresome. I only brought it up to highlight

You state-"One of the reasons I believe that the right-wing is making such huge gains in the past several years is the complete disengagement of the left from any kind of practical reformist activity. The Amercian left perpetually agitates from the margins". I would flip this around and posit that the very lack of a revolutionary left is at fault for the gains of the rightwing. During the 90's the left turned to the "third way" and to Clinton and new labor. It was also the time of the belief that NGO's were the road to change. All of this is reformist in its origin, which I see as the begining of the rise of the rightwing. You and most people will mention Dr. King's suceeses in the civil rights movement without any reference to the more radical wing of the movement-the black panthers etc... There is much writen on this and there is still a debate, however I believe that it is only because of the very real threat of the more radical groups to instigate social revolution that the more moderate SCLC and others made the gains that they did. If we apply the same analysis today, we see that all of the hoopla about the netroots and the faith in the democrats and reform oriented change is not stoping the War. Without a more radical threat to social stability there will be no reform. It is only through the contingent conflict brought about by radical social action that the subjective presupositions of the ruling elite will penetrated by the objective social situation. Only then will this objective social situation react back upon the elites subjective ideas and crate social change. (just though I would throw in a little of Paul's hated dialectics)

Walter K take a look at the perverted failures of your perverted ideology (and priorities), you capitalist pervert.  Lord knows you and your perverted friends over at the perverted Chicago Tribune will never talk about the perveted failures of your perverse system and ideology. Just take a look at all the perverted social disaster right outside your perverted imperial homeland window, you big perv you.  

Read up "palinurus"....you will be tested on these and other assigned materials in the ideological re-education camp that we are planning for you after the Chavezist forces come north. You and Walter K. will learn to drop your perverted embrace of capitalist tyranny.   

 

Hey Paul, remember a few weeks ago when you praised Cuba and the tyrant Fidel Castro? Well, looks like things are going reeeeallllly well down there.  The government salary is $14 per month but the cost of living is $60 per month.  Yeah, socialism works.  Read this article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0701190115jan19,1,2838686.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Speaking of socialists, or progressives, or "left libertarians" - whatever that is, it looks like its time to all hail the great leader Hugo Chavez as he tightens the reigns to become a DICTATOR! Suprise suprise, a socialist government turning into a dictatorship. Whoever would have thunk?  Read this article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0701190109jan19,1,3952801.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

 

Why post these here? Because lord knows you'll never talk about the failures of your perverted ideology.

 

give me a genuine definition of "tyranny" that does not apply to your hero Chavez in Venezuela.

 

number 2, can bush be wrong without being "wicked," "a tyrant," and "idiot," etc.?

 

You people are really lost.  What a waste of education and natural intelligence......

Michael you say you “can't honestly imagine a desirable and feasible revolutionary scenario in the United States” Then start imagining harder. Something has to give; that's not my fault...it's an existential imperative. It's not about the crystal ball and “prognosis” or really about imagining; that's an academic exercise. I know, sounds crazy. Not necessarily talking 1917 or 1789 here, but about deep systemic change and radical restructuring, however it may come about. “and there certainly has been nothing said here so far that's made it any easier to picture.” Probably not going to happen in blog exchange but if someone wants to try to help Michael imagine revolution please try. “ Some problems have no solutions. The United States at the present moment may be one of them.” Oh, okay. See, that's the problem with a crystal ball approach. Throw the crystal ball out the window “As to your own fruitless efforts at reform, one can draw a couple conclusions. Your implicit conclusion is that the system is so impermeable that meaningful reform is impossible. My conclusion is that the system is heavily fortified certainly, but it doesn't help that the culture of the American left breeds failure. I would include among its defeatist faults the tendency to quibble over whether participating in reformist activity is a good idea.” Well, just speaking for myself, I never quibbled. And never really said fruitless. I liked it. It was fun. Testifying to legislative committees. Writing big fancy reports. Giving talks. Talking to reporters. I went all out. Even some tangible policies I can lay some claim to having helped passed, etc. But having paid some dues and done it I can report it's not on the scale required at present and we can - no we have to (not worrying abut "can" or "can't") ---to do much better. “ I find this particularly odd since the vast majority, including you, go all reformist at election time and bend over without condition for vermin like Kerry.” Nothing reformist about tactical voting, just a calculation about which party in power does the least harm (especially to truly disadvantaged populations) and creates the best milieu to pursue relevant left activities, which aren't actually about personality driven election extravaganzas every 4 or 2 years. I think your line is sort of false radical because it naively assumes there are revolutionary options through the American electoral system and their really aren't. I've done work on trying to enable third parties and continue to advocate the panoply of recommendations in that regard. I ripped Kerry to shreds in whatever arenas I had at my disposal but I also realistically and correctly understood that while he was corporate-neoliberal Pepsi (vermin if you like), Bush was worse than Coke...he was and is Crack and quite dangerous.I think the neocons have proto-fascist aspects and are supremely dangerous. The lesser evil v. 3rd party thing is an old quadrennial debate (tiresome) and I was always amused by the unacknowledged bourgeois reformism of Nader-types trying to bust on me from my supposed left. And there is a curious race dimension to it all. Black voters generally had no trouble identifying Bush as a significantly greater threat however much they had real issues with Kerry. “The left has no strategy, has not had a strategy since the 60s and will continue to lose both at reform and revolution until that changes. It compromises when it should be resolute. It is unbending when it should compromise.” Well, certainly not hard to see there's a lot of truth in that but this needs more specifics and you don't sound terribly interested in helping work those issues out given the problems-without-solutions comment. “A socialist revolution would be wonderful but I do not believe it is imminent. Fortunately, good things are happening in the world without violent revolutionary change, particularly in South America. I see no reason why some of that can't happen here.” Nobody here says imminent; I sure don't. I'm on record saying very good things happening in Latin America. But look for violence in coming years especially as the emergent forces of U.S Energo-Fascism (see Michael Klare fascinating pieces on ZNet main page) begin to focus more on the new Bolivarian revolution. Sure, let's learn from L.America and bring some of the lessons and energy to the imperial homeland; you bet. “I was too hasty in my reply. Paul said: Fighting on specific things is part of how you get to a point where you can talk credibly to a large audience about the bigger systemic problems that make the task of reform and STOPPING this and that and the other like the little Dutch boy trying to close every breach in the dyke. That seems like a stronger endorsement of reform than you began with” There's no way around having to be involved in specific issues in really existing society, even or especially from a far left perspective; I admit it. cyrano wants to me announce an exploratory committe for the '08 race, but after conferring with friends and family I have concluded that I have too many ideological skeletons in my closet to undertake a serious run for the presidency.

I was too hasty in my reply. Paul said:

Fighting on specific things is part of how you get to a point where you can talk credibly to a large audience about the bigger systemic problems that make the task of reform and STOPPING this and that and the other like the little Dutch boy trying to close every breach in the dyke.

That seems like a stronger endorsement of reform than you began with.

 

Michael went to a place I've been to and done... I have spent years pushing for practical and incremental reform within mainstream institutions and also pushing for removal of the structural barriers (work on campaign finance/for public financing and trying to sustain the welfare safety net and push for livable wages and saving affirmative action and for balanced development and shcool funding reform, etc.) and can attest that it leads not quite nowhere but just about. And besides it's just too late [ecologically speaking] for reform anymore: things are too far gone.

It wasn't recommendation. It was a prognosis. What needs to happen and what will happen are two different things. I can't honestly imagine a desirable and feasible revolutionary scenario in the United States and there certainly has been nothing said here so far that's made it any easier to picture. Some problems have no solutions. The United States at the present moment may be one of them.

As to your own fruitless efforts at reform, one can draw a couple conclusions. Your implicit conclusion is that the system is so impermeable that meaningful reform is impossible. My conclusion is that the system is heavily fortified certainly, but it doesn't help that the culture of the American left breeds failure. I would include among its defeatist faults the tendency to quibble over whether participating in reformist activity is a good idea. I find this particularly odd since the vast majority, including you, go all reformist at election time and bend over without condition for vermin like Kerry. The left has no strategy, has not had a strategy since the 60s and will continue to lose both at reform and revolution until that changes. It compromises when it should be resolute. It is unbending when it should compromise. 

A socialist revolution would be wonderful but I do not believe it is imminent. Fortunately, good things are happening in the world without violent revolutionary change, particularly in South America. i see no reason why some of that can't happen here.

I have indeed. He is not the ONE.

I hate to say it but I think the best we can hope for at the moment is several years' incremental reform.

Me hopes you are dead wrong, as there exists neither time nor prospects for incremental reform in the Dark Empire. But the pit of my stomach says you are dead right. An interesting quote from James Petras in his article "Who Rules America" demonstrates the depth to which the financiers in America have taken over in recent years.

“Former Bank Executives Hold Unprecedented Power within a US Administration” US financial and manufacturing ruling classes have long influenced, advised and formulated policy for US Presidents. But given the stakes, the risks and the opportunities facing the financial ruling class, it has moved directly into key government posts. What is especially unprecedented is the dominant presence of members from one investment bank – Goldman Sachs. In late November 2006, Goldman Sachs (GS) senior executive William Dudley took over the Federal Reserve Bank of New York markets group. Hank Paulson, ex-CEO of GS is Treasury Secretary – explicitly anointed by President Bush as undisputed czar of all economic policies. Reuben Jeffrey, a former GS managing partner is the chief regulator of commodity futures and options trading, Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff (he decides who Bush sees, when and for how long – in other words arranges Bush's agenda) served as GS executive director. Robert Steel, former GS vice chairman, advises Paulson on domestic finance. Randall Fort, ex-GS director of global security, advises Secretary of State Rice. The ex-GS officials also dominate Bush's working group on financial markets and financial crisis management. The investment bankers wielding state power will control the Bush regime's biggest housing giants (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), tax policy, energy markets – all issues that directly affect the investment banks. In other words, the financial banks will be ‘regulated' by their own executives. The degree of finance capital's stranglehold on political power is evidenced by the total lack of criticism by either party. As one financial newspaper noted: “Neither Mr. Bush nor Goldman have been criticized by Democrats for holding too many powerful jobs in part because the investment bank (GS) also has deep ties to Democrats. Goldman represented the biggest single donor base to the Democrats ahead of this (2006) year's mid-term election”. (FT December 4, 2006)

The article is a good read in my opinion. You can see it at this website.

We are in deep deep dodo and it's getting deeper.

 

 

Don't do it. The man is a deep CIA mole. He will use your money for sex and drugs.

Please contact me for information on how to donate directly, heavily and (if you don't mind) quickly (big electric bill coming up) into my personal savings (and/or checking) account.

> That is indeed the big question - "What is to be done?". And the US/UK/European Left is not answering. No, not even the mighty NC. I wonder why that is.

 

Have you ever heard of a guy named Michael Albert?

 

Victor, Paul , I kinda agree the left need to find leaders(s)at least for the implementation of paraconist ideology, but leadership alone is not sufficient, a leader need a strong organization of thinker behind it.. Ideally, I leader if well supported by his organization could be just like s spokeperson, an orator, a speaker a teacher and even an historian.. I don't think it is a matter of beleiving but rather a matter of being positive and trying. I don't know , but could an organization such as Znet become a political party? Could Znet support Paul Street for a bid to a presidential election ? Could the left and the environmentalist unite under Znet? would elected representative resign their seat once a more valuable society is established?

Michael went to a place I've been to and done... I have spent years pushing for practical and incremental reform within mainstream institutions and also pushing for removal of the structural barriers (work on campaign finance/for public financing and trying to sustain the welfare safety net and push for livable wages and saving affirmative action and for balanced development and shcool funding reform, etc.) and can attest that it leads not quite nowhere but just about. And besides it's just too late [ecologically speaking] for reform anymore: things are too far gone. Call revolution (King's "radical restructuring" to undo the "perverted priorities" of Empire and Inequality or of what King called the "triple evils that are interrelated": racism, militarism/imperialism and capitalism) an "historical imperative" if you like. Was it Che who said "it's not my fault that reality is Marxist" (well, and/or left anarchist). Of course leaders will emerge and individuals matter but ideals and practice can and should be structured around democratic and participatory values..unless we just want to keep replicating authoritarian and ultimately class-based structure. So I guess I'm trying to start a cult. Victor agrees with my good friend Lenin (who I would have had to fight at Kronstadt) and me that "what is to be done” is "indeed the big question." Victor I said "centralist," not "centrist;" you sound left even if we've tangled on conspiracy theories so I would not call you a centrist. "Not necessarily. I only want justice and a better life for the world. I'm not particularly interested in how that comes about or by what form of government, even if it is a relatively inefficient one." I am also not picky about how we get to a better post- capitalist place so long as we get there (and agree that we must get there), but I don't just want new and different class and bureaucratic hierarchies to stifle equality and democracy so I would not put things that way. The Soviet-form was in my opinion a new and different class society somewhat along the lines that left anarchists like Bakunin ("Red bureaucracy") and left Marxists like Rosa L. warned and worried about. My guy Trotsky (how I loved his Permanent Revolution at age 18) said it was still a workers' state but had given rise to a bureaucratic excess which was basically an anomaly arising merely from the failure of the world revolution. Anarchs back from Bakunin through the interesting Rudolph Rocker and up through people like ZNet's own NC and Mike Albert have I think a more useful perspective but that's a book and I'd better leave off.... Victor you say "I am solidly against capitalism because of its logical end, which we are now playing out. Marx was correct in the capitalism will eventually implode. He meant for the proletariat to be there when it did to pick up the pieces and form a 'new world order' of workers. What he didn't understand was that there might not be much of humanity left after that." Hold on: Marx and Engels (no slouch, his "Socialism: Scientific and Utopian" is still a marvelous introduction to the history of modern radical thought) in 1848 (Manifesto) said we'd move either to communism or to "the common ruin of the contending classes." We seems to be heading toward the common ruin of the contending (and non-contending) classes and ecospheres (environmental destruction is eminently understandable in Marx's terms: a cost externalizing mechanism for evading declining rates of profit imposed by class struggle and increasing organic composition of capital, excess capital, excess commodities and the rest of that crisis theory I used to puzzle over) But Marx was in my opinion way too positive about capitalism, the supposed midwife of socialism. He was caught up with seductive "dialectical" mystifications inherited from Hegel and certain he had discovered iron "laws of history." I think no such laws exist. "Capitalism" (or whatever we want to call the current system of state-protected business rule) probably contains no inherent genetic code of self-destruction and magical teleological transcendence: it does not necessarily breed its own gravediggers (proletarian or otherwise) and it may be wired simply to destroy humanity and a livable earth. It certainly possesses remarkable contradictions (use value v. exchange value and bourgeois democracy v. private tyranny for example...more durably useful dichotomies I think than [it pains a former labor historian to say] "bourgeoisie v. proletariat") but it is up to collective human agents to actually exploit them and their broader capabilities for the creation of a better world. Look at the latest Z Magazine, the print version. There's an interesting article (titled "Crisis of Capitalism?") by the radical sociologist James Petras in which he points out the capitalism is riding very high and lacks any imminent imploding crisis in the absence of any radical movement (worker or otherwise) remotely close to challenging it. "Wanting a leader does not at all imply wanting a despot." The great Eugene Debs used to talk about the difference between rising from the masses and rising with the masses and that's a good and important distinction, the acceptance of which always brought me closer to his allies and competitors on the left - the Wobblies (IWWs) who talked about every worker and citizen being a leader and the difference between rank and file power and bureaucratic power. "Nor does it imply wanting a centralized government. Leaders bring focus. Today's left, I'm sure you will agree, has none of that. Leaders bring strength and persuasion. The left is weak and bickers a lot among themselves without real cause. Leaders cause change. The Left today seems under the impression that if they can just get the word out about their many many causes, that little by little, a whole world movement will happen. Well, the trend is against you in the US/UK/Europe - perhaps not so bad in S. America. The left is not growing in America. And even if it did, the structure of American society is such that it cannot hope to survive without blood and great sacrifice and huge changes in the American psyche." Can't tackle all of that (time issues); yes it is a great error to think the vision and practice for a better and more just world will simply emerge organically out of the resistance. This is one reason that the parecon efforts and literature that Albert has pioneered (and which are available on Znet) are so important and impressive; he and they take the "What is To Be Done" question seriously, dropping the assumption (sometimes made by NC, at least in some past writings) that it is inherently Lenninist/centralist. But I would also remind people that you don't have to have the full blown vision for a better and possible world worked out in order to organize around specific demands, even just negative ones like ...you know STOP the U.S. Murder in Iraq and (soon it would appear) Iran; STOP the hyper-incarceration of drug "offenders" and ghetto dwellers; STOP the practice of residential race discrimination; STOP dumping pollution into the air and water..STOP...fill in the blank. It's like the old Buddhist adage: first do no harm. First stop exacerbating the damage to living things and the world. Fighting on specific things is part of how you get to a point where you can talk credibly to a large audience about the bigger systemic problems that make the task of reform and STOPPING this and that and the other like the little Dutch boy trying to close every breach in the dyke. On violence, I don't like it but its generally the defenders of the status quo who initiate it and ruling powers never give up without a measure of bloody fight (some people say East bloc collapse is proof otherwise but I suspect not because the old CPers just got to fairly easily convert into the a new more openly state capitalist elite; something that it is unsurprising to people who have anarch backgrounds and a little harder for straight Marxists to grasp). I think it's probably pathological to just swear off any use of violence. I agree that King and Gandhi show (ala the electric and quasi-messianic Debs [there I go with my cult-tendencies) that leadership need not be inherently despotic. And yes, I tend to think we will perish without the "radical restructuring" (King). I keep hearing actual centrists like say Obama talking about the need to be "realistic" and "trim our sails" and stay within the reasonably narrow boundaries of "pragmatic" politics and ideology. Well shit, let's be realistically pragmatic enough to understand that civilization and democracy simply cannot survive much more of the dominant, business-ruled order. King once told his SCLC colleagues to turn off their tape recorders and said "look, I'll deny this if you quote me in public, but we will never solve these problems under capitalism."

That is indeed the big question - "What is to be done?". And the US/UK/European Left is not answering. No, not even the mighty NC. I wonder why that is. You say, Paul, that I am a centrist. Not necessarily. I only want justice and a better life for the world. I'm not particularly interested in how that comes about or by what form of government, even if it is a relatively inefficient one. I am solidly against capitalism because of its logical end, which we are now playing out. Marx was correct in the capitalism will eventually implode. He meant for the proletariat to be there when it did to pick up the pieces and form a "new world order" of workers. What he didn't understand was that there might not be much of humanity left after that. Wanting a leader does not at all imply wanting a despot. Nor does it imply wanting a centralized government. Leaders bring focus. Today's left, I'm sure you will agree, has none of that. Leaders bring strength and persuasion. The left is weak and bickers a lot among themselves without real cause. Leaders cause change. The Left today seems under the impression that if they can just get the word out about their many many causes, that little by little, a whole world movement will happen. Well, the trend is against you in the US/UK/Europe - perhaps not so bad in S. America. The left is not growing in America. And even if it did, the structure of American society is such that it cannot hope to survive without blood and great sacrifice and huge changes in the American psyche. Distributed change? Piece by piece? Person by person? How long do you think that is really going to take? How about forever? We haven't time for a libertarian movement. It can't succeed in America. Never has. Never will. We need action, and we need it soon. We need to get our proverbial left fingers out of our proverbial societal asses and start moving forward under strong and loud leadership. Blood must be spilled to change America. God help us, I do not believe otherwise. And I don't mean the Establishment's blood as in a bloody violent armed revolution, but instead we as a people must rise up, stand our ground, quit co-operating with this evil system, and as Gandhi and MLK showed the world how - to exercise extreme and widespread civil disobedience. Such actions co-ordinated on a wide scale will surely cost those who participate their blood as the Establishment takes its revenge. Was Gandhi or King despots? No. Did they provide focus, and intelligence and strategy and heart to trigger a national movement that could not be stopped by those in power? Yes. Did they lose their lives in payment? Yes. And simply said, that's what I believe we need. You may look down upon my simple way, as not holding to lofty and intellectual ideals of a self-generated social revolution carrying with it an intellectually intricate and jargon-filled economic system that most can't even pronounce much less hope to actually put into practice. But I don't think it is an ideal to be taken seriously today. We move out soon with agreed principles and focussed strategy, or we perish. We perish as a country. We perish as viable civilization. We perish as humans, and leave the remains to the roaches and spiders who probably deserve it more than we anyway.

Regarding mass movements, these can emerge very speedily once there is some historical imperative at work.

I've always found talk of "historical imperative" quasi religious in nature. Happy to be talked out of it though. Agree that mass movements can emerge speedily, but I think groundwork needs to be laid. I don't think the groundwork has been laid in the United States. If there is a mass movement, assuming it is not mostly reactionary in nature, I am curious how you think it will contend with the state's resort to violence in the absence of large enlightened factions in the military or police.

I also don't cotton to the denigration of individual leadership in leftist circles, which seems more often animated by ideology than by experience with how people actually behave. It leads to all kinds of silly, self-defeating behavior, like non-hierarchical organizations, which as anyone who has been there knows, end up being the most authoritarian and cultish organizations imaginable.

One can say that Martin Luther King had a particularly profound impact on the Black Civil Rights movement politics, without concluding that the movement for racial equality was emphemeral or cultish. Very likely he could have parlayed his movement celebrity (for lack of a better term) into resuscitating dormant yearnings for economic justice and that his death helped the cause of keeping them dormant. One could say that at that point, the movement for economic justice had no 'staying power', but what does that mean exactly? That it wasn't worthy? Valid? Capable of acquiring staying power?

As to incremental reform -- again saying it's not possible flies in the face of facts. There have been incremental reforms in the same way that there are incremental setbacks and there is no evidence that they are incompatible with revolution. One of the reasons I believe that the right-wing is making such huge gains in the past several years is the complete disengagement of the left from any kind of practical reformist activity. The Amercian left perpetually agitates from the margins -- when it agitates at all -- never attempting to remove structural barriers to more effective penetration, rarely pursuing elective office (except when it's entirely symbolic) and then, during the election cycle, quibbling over the utility of bending over unconditionally for the Democrat which almost inevitably, it does.

We need a new script. Also new leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reintegration of people's will and political authority, I agree, can only be achieved through revolutionary means. Though I do not support a violent revolution, I do support a revolution that expects violence to be directed at it and will not flinch.

I'm not so sure about this for the United States. I've been reading a bit about the 60s and it's hard for me not to conclude that all the revolutionary activity of that time was successfully thwarted by state violence. A lot of folks didn't flinch and they died. Many leftists seem opposed to the very idea of leadership, but like it or not, certain individuals galvanize a movement and when those individuals are taken out, movements suffer. Revolution may be a collective enterprise, but the parts are not always interchangable. This is another area where the elites are sophisticated -- they don't doubt the importance of individual leadership to mass movements and are careful to kill it where it grows.

The apparatus of social control and indoctrination are so sophisticated in this country, it's hard to imagine a mass of support so profound that it could temper the state's resort to violence. I hate to say it but I think the best we can hope for  at the moment is several years' incremental reform. To that end, I think we should aim at pores in the system (bottom up electoral participation) and tactical coalitions aimed at removing structural barriers to minority participation. 

This is a rare case where I agree with much, perhaps most of the criticisms being made of my post – particularly the ones from Michael. I knew something was off I suppose since I told the fellow it wasn't the best I had. 

There is some unacknowledged tension between what I say here and what I said in “Missions Accomplished” and I side with the latter on reflection.     Regarding Clintons and Obama, by smart, I don't mean in the sort of way that a serious left intellectual would recognize of course. I just finished an exhaustive review of Obama's last book and I was simultaneously astonished at how stupid it is and at how smart Obama is at being imperially stupid and assimilating elite doctrine.  Maybe it's the comparison with people like Bush II  that has me thinking them of as intelligent.

Not sure what to do with sk's comment: if we rebel then the real brown-shirt type fascists will come after us.  Okay. Let's not rebel and just continue to experience the creeping-down post democratic corporate proto-fascism that has spread across the land, with disastrous consequences.  

Victor is absolutely right in my opinion to note that the noxious BNP at least has a plan/organization/ mission and to contrast that favorably (in at least one sense) with left and liberal reluctance to engage at all in the public sphere. . As I said before in a different exchange , while I am a big fan of NC, I would dedicate the last 15 minutes of every one of his well-attended lectures to Lenin's question (and one does not have to be a Lenninist to pose and answer it): What is to Be Done? (1902).  That's a damn good question.  But Victor  you seem over- inclined to identify meaningful resistance with the emergence of “A LEADER,” as opposed to a grassroots movement in accord with the democratic and participatory society ZNet/ZMag has historically advocated; but perhaps we are dealing with the tension between a centralist and a left-libertarian approach, with the latter  more concerned perhaps with Chavez's authoritarianism. Which is fine; I was a Trotskyist for two semesters. To me that is a manageable tension given obvious political circumstances. Being in a position to battle it out between left-centralists and left libertarians for the direction of state and society would be a nice problem to have to say the least.   

mtbrad says “He is smart enough to become president and more importantly, or more accurately, the people behind him are smart enough to make him president and to control the reigns of the largest empire in world history.”

Well, yes they are not (not even Bush) complete imbeciles and function within power structures that enable them.  

mtbrad says, “ Sure the US elites make many, many mistakes, but don't let that fool you. They have a plan and they are winning.”

Oh they always have strategic plans and the like. The Williams-Kolko difference was about how sophisticated and left-bending (corporate liberal) they had to be win.  And one thing that's scary is they don't have to be even remotely left-bending to seem sophisticated enough to win anymore…and winning always makes you sophisticated.  And this has to do with the counterrevolutionary/corporate-neoliberal  devastation (Michael is right that this is a rational/ intelligent, deliberate ruling-class project, not just a fact of the hopeless American terrain ala Kolko [or for that matter of some impersonal reality called “globalization”) of institutions (e.g unions and a different sort of Democratic Party and more independent media and other things)  that used to mediate between the needs of ordinary people and policy (see Williiam Greider's book Who Will Tell the People?) , not to mention the absence of revolutionary movements.  

mtbrad says “ the evidence is quite clear in the fact that they rule dispite all of the left gray matter we throw at them. Which means they have more, or apply it better.” 

 It just means they have more institutional and political power, which would be the secret to “applying it better..”. But we agree that “the elite has more resources on its side and with resources comes the ability to purchase brain power.”  

Mtbrad finally says “your statement that ‘It's going to take a massive upheaval, a revolutionary social transformation of sorts --- at the very least a great political rebellion --- to to bring a measure of sanity and decency to U.S. policy', I would also site as missing the point. No national policy will ever be sane or decent. The nation-state is a tool of capital and any illusions that one can harvest it for social good is quite misplaced. Alas, this is a digression.”

Not sure that's a digression or a statement of no-holds barred Trotskyist  or perhaps Baknunist internationalism…only a world revolution can achieve left goals and there's no such thing as policy decency in one state.  Sign me up for the international revolution -- workers, peasants, soldiers, left intellectuals and informal Third World slum dwellers  of the world unite ---   but in the meantime I'm also going to advocate for more sanity and less murder and mayhem on the part of specific nation states.  Chavez seems to be making some efforts to combine specific left or at leas populist measures within his own nation state with an effort to build regional and international alliances against what he denounces (with some real basis, whatever his motives and vision, which are probably not without real problems) as “imperialism.”    

One of the downsides of the tragic absence of left alternatives in the American structure is that they don't have to be remotely smart beyond their narrow agendas. The American System is wired for insane fiascos. It's like the old joke about why a dog licks it balls: "because it can."

This is stated as if the 'tragic absence of left alternatives' is as ineluctable as gravity rather than being largely the result of decisions and maneuvers made over the course of several years by 'rational and sophisticated' elites. More authoritarian states than ours have been shaken up from below. There is a correction mechanism for badly behaved elites -- violent revolutionary change, among others -- and the elites are well aware of it. Does anyone believe that the radical dismantling of constitutional guarantees is wholly unrelated to foresight of where perpetual war and Robin Hood in reverse will inevitably lead?

In case it's not obvious, in the above I said 'private to public cash transfers' where it should be 'public to private cash transfers.'

they rule with little sophistication and foresight, committing one idiotic mistake after another --- often involving imperial overreach and a preference of military over political solutions and little sense of the limits of their power

I think I can agree that Bush is an idiot while taking exception to the use of the word 'they' in Kolko's assessment. I'd want to know what, in Kolko's view constitutes an 'idiotic mistake'. It's only a mistake if the price of it is born by the elites who make it. It's not a mistake if like all the other costs of empire, it's born by the general public. What mistakes has Bush made that are likely to have a serious effect on the interests he represents and are they sufficiently large to have effectively neutralized all the 'good' he has done his class?

I think the powers that be have a fairly sophisticated understanding of both their short and long term interests. If Bush weren't delivering the goods on both fronts (short-term: large private to public cash transfers, long-term: careful dismantling of the right to dissent) it's quite likely he'd be facing impeachment right now. It seems to me that the pattern the elites follow is pushing some hardcore rightwing prick in there to make fast gains, then when society cries out for adjustment, making sure that a slightly more benign-looking representative of roughly the same interests (Hillary, Obama) manages the transition. It's hard to survey all the ground they've gained in the past several years (particular in the area of those cash transfers) and conclude they're anything but crazy like a fox.

Finally, I have heard again and again how smart the Clintons are, but, frankly, I have never really seen the evidence. Any time I see either one of them interviewed I am struck by how banal and dull they are. Clinton's book is horrible and the blog he briefly maintained at the time was jaw-droppingly bad. All the stuff about Bill's mile a minute, razor sharp mind comes all from gushing reporters and colleages and is therefore entirely unreliable. Don't forget not too long ago they were telling us Bush was bilingual. Certainly Clinton's not the idiot Bush is, but he's never impressed me much.

Don't have enough experience to judge Obama. In interviews though, I note a great speaking voice reciting banal bromides and half-truths. How does one discern intelligence in warmed-over bullshit?

He is smart enough to become president and more importantly, or more accurately, the people behind him are smart enough to make him president and to control the reigns of the largest empire in world history. Sure the US elites make many, many mistakes, but don't let that fool you. They have a plan and they are winning. Personally I think Kolko was, and still is, wrong. I also think you interpret what you call the Williams intelligent power elite position a bit to narrowly Paul. One must include not only the Bushes of the elite mechanism but also the Obamas. Bush is there to make Obama, or Clinton palitable to a county of genuenly progressive people. Most importantly it works. The evidence is quite clear in the fact that they rule dispite all of the left gray matter we throw at them. Which means they have more, or apply it better. Either way do dismiss the elite as dumb is to easy and unsocratic. We must accept that the elite has more resources on its side and with resources comes the ability to purchase brain power. Also, your statement that "It's going to take a massive upheaval, a revolutionary social transformation of sorts --- at the very least a great political rebellion --- to to bring a measure of sanity and decency to U.S. policy", I would also site as missing the point. No national policy will ever be sane or decent. The nation-state is a tool of capital and any illusions that one can harvest it for social good is quite misplaced. Alas, but this is quite a digression, although an much more interesting one than Bush's IQ.

For once I agree with the BNP and their ilk. They see what is coming and are doing something about it. They have organization, a mission, defined objectives and are focussed in planning a strategy to meet those objectives. And therein lies my problem with the left today. The leftist leaders should be reaching out to each other, pooling their global resources, defining a mission and how they plan to meet mission objectives when the shit hits the fan. But I see none of that. At least Chavez and the S. Americans are out there making allies and formulating strategies. But where is the USA, the UK, Europe? We are doing little more than whining about how bad things are. Maybe we attend a protest here and there. Maybe we write a few articles lambasting the political situation across the globe. Maybe we even attend a leftist forum from time to time. But we are not organized. If and when all this comes down, we will be sitting there with our thumbs up our asses isolated from each other, waiting for arrest and wishing we had planned for this. We need a leader with credentials who will rise from the Left, work with world leftists and bring together an action plan. Chomsky is not going to do this. Is there anyone who will?

It's going to take a massive upheaval, a revolutionary social transformation of sorts...

Be careful what you wish for. The real Nazis (no allusions necessary for this bunch) are also biding their time for a seemingly overwhelming crisis which in their view will be economic and not military. Excerpts from a good investigative special report by the Guardian:

This strategy was laid out by Mr Griffin in a speech to a closed meeting of American white supremacists and European far-right party activists in New Orleans last year. In a recording of the speech obtained by the Guardian, he tells his audience to prepare now for "an age of scarcity that will be a once-in-200-years opportunity".

He not only believes that an economic crisis of catastrophic proportions would present a great opportunity for the BNP: he appears to be convinced that such a crisis is inevitable, the result of global warming, fuel shortages and mounting debt.

"When the revolution comes, the revolution which is going to sweep away this nightmare, it is going to come in Europe, and it's going to come very suddenly," he told the New Orleans audience. "Bang: one month they don't support you, the next month--if you've done your homework and the circumstances are right--they are prepared to support you."

___________________________________________________

From one of the previous day's pieces (Dec. 21, '06)

BNP activists are also now discouraged from using any racist or anti-semitic language in public, in order to avoid possible prosecution. In a BNP rulebook, issued only to activists and organisers, they are instructed that they should avoid acting in a way which fits stereotypes of the far right, and "act only in a way that reflects credit on the Party".
.
.
.
The BNP already has significant numbers of members living in those areas. They include Peter Bradbury, a leading proponent of complementary medicine who has links to Prince Charles, Richard Highton, a healthcare regulator, and Simone Clarke, principal dancer with the English National Ballet.

There are also dozens of company directors, computing entrepreneurs, bankers and estate agents among the 200 members and lapsed members living in central London. One member is a servant of the Queen residing at Buckingham Palace, while a number are former Conservative party activists.
.
.
.
The party is now attempting to recruit many more well-heeled members, and aims to organise them into a branch which it hopes to use in its attempts to dispel the widely held view that it remains a party of thuggish, working-class racists.
.
.
.

Obama is a smarter idiot..amid all the brain Street gives him, obama is just a following sheep.. brains means nothing , it is how you use it for the common good that counts.. I'd vote for all the chavez of the world..

Eric, I agree we've got to call these guys like we see them. Dubya is a drop-dead dumbass of truly historic proportions. That's just a fact and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. And you know, I'm not necessarily predisposed to call particular top policymakers and/politicians "idiots" and the like. For example, I've been all over Bill Clinton - very critical of him on ZNet, but I would never call the guy stupid except maybe for the way he handled that Monica situation. Wild Willy was sharp as Hell in the brains department...always reading and talking to high-level folks with and his mind going a million miles a minute (faster even than some other parts of his body); a total policy wonk with a high IQ. Obama is another one: scary smart. And Hilary's no fool. Intelligence isn't my issue with policymakers because obviously I have been unstinting in my criticism of these opportunistic corporate-neoliberal Dems. Lately I've been especially hard on Obama, just eviscerating him (and I'm only getting started), and he is one of the smartest politicians I've ever seen. The main thing in this post though is about Kolko's point. They rule smart and they rule dumb but always capitalist and imperial because they can.

A common thing that I've observed from some left-liberals and other well meaning commentators such as the one from Canada, is this narrative that confers a certain 'intelligence' upon Bush, who clearly cannot string two sentences together if his life depended on it Nothing could be farther from truth. Bush,who displays the rather childish, sophistry that the majority of authoritarian nationalists who call themselves "conservative" display on a regular basis, is an idiot, and saying so is neither "dangerous" nor "simplistic" for left authoritarians to do so. We as radicals, democrats and progressives of all stripes should not hesitate to call it as we see it - respect should only be conferred on those who deserve it, not upon those who've already shown they're ass as complete clowns.

 

eb