[Peace-discuss] Re: ...Assumptions

[C. G. Estabrook]

I'll pass over the personal comments, Al, which I doubt will (or should)
have the desired effect.

[1. LEFT] The question is about the term "Left."  Sticking to the most
common uses of the term, I suggested that we could see, in the
contemporary US, two main groupings on the Left, and two on the Right.

But I admit that the use of the term is confused and contradictory --
often not innocently.  (I proposed what I thought could be a consistent if
rather basic use for it -- viz., tending to the democratic, rather than
authoritarian -- as a vector, a tendency, a direction, rather than a
settled political position.  Of course, that use would have, e.g., the
admittedly unusual effect of making the Bolsheviks right-wing Marxists.)

It's hard to use the term consistently.  Look at your own practice in your
note:
	[a] In paragraph 5, the Left means Chomsky -- which is a fine
start: I'd be delighted to restrict the meaning of the term to Chomsky's
position, but that would rule out a lot of current uses.

	[b] In paragraph 6, we learn that liberal imperialists are not on
the Left, even though the press refers to some or all of the Democratic
party (liberal-imperialist to a ward-heeler) as Left.

	[c] Also in paragraph 6, we learn that "by definition, liberals
are not leftists," which would come as a surprise to many Americans in the
press and populace. What is that definition?  Do you contend that the
terms are used with a consistent distinction?

	[d] In paragraph 7, apparently in contrast to the foregoing, the
Left seems to include "identity politics" (IP for short), which looks
liberal (but what's the definition of that?) to many people, and doesn't
find much place in Chomsky's views.

	[e] In paragraph 8, the Left are those who protest the war, surely
the broadest usage yet, and probably including not only liberals but
liberal imperialists who thought the war ill-advised (see below).

For about a century (ca. early 19th-early 20th), the Left meant those (not
just Marxists) who thought that capitalism was a struggle between classes
and wanted to end it by winning that struggle.  (That's certainly a
different meaning from my political one -- although I think that they can
be brought together).

But, clearly, "Left" today is not used exclusively in that (19th-century)  
sense any more than it is to refer only to Marxism(-Leninism); nor do I
think that I'll have much luck in enforcing my restrictive political
meaning for the term.

[2. IP] You say I disparage IP, and I do: "We disparage a person by
conceding his claimed merits but regarding them as trivial," says a usage
guide.

IP arose as the political enthusiasms of the 60s and 70s subsided in a
wave of disappointment at the perceived impossibility (or undesirability)
of their achievement.  The point of difference was I think universalism.
Many in those years had looked for a transformation of society that would
"establish justice, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty" for all.  When the notion of a transformation based on class
was given up, various self-identified groups -- blacks, women, native
Americans, etc. -- took its place.  In some ways IP was a counsel of
despair, the "Sixties'" project having been given up, and it's no accident
that it paralleled the rise in the academy of "Post-modernism," an
anti-universalism that discovered constant covert self-interest --
"skepticism over against grand narratives."  (Pomo itself at its worst was
hypocritical, allowing one the pose of a "radical" without necessitating
any career-endangering action.)

Identity politics in many of its groupings ("the getting-ours segment of
the Movement," as some feminists called it), like Post-modernism, was
anti-democratic (and therefore not Left under my definition), because it
no longer regarded "mainstream society" as the potentially revolutionary
subject, but rather the source of oppression; it nevertheless presented
itself as the residuary legatee of the Sixties, and therefore part if not
all of what was left (so to speak). I contend(ed) that it remains a
principal part of what is generally considered the Left -- as do you.

[3. PALEOCONS] Unless we ignore what is published in the media as
"theoretical armchair discussions of which [you are] not aware"  [TADs]
it's clear that the non-Neocon Right has been the source of principled
criticism of the war in a way rarely found on the Left (according to the
general usage).  I'll post some recent examples separately.  I think this
point is shown by the nature of the opposition to the war to be found in
the mainstream press.

During the Vietnam war, the press and pundits were divided between those
who supported the war and those who thought that it was unwinnable.  
(Then SOD McNamara made headlines long afterwards by "coming out against
the war'" -- i.e, saying that the second position was correct.) What you
could not find in the mainstream press was the view that a large majority
of Americans eventually adopted -- that the war had been not a mistake but
a crime, that it had been wrong in the sense of unethical to kill millions
of people in SE Asia.

We find the same division today, (neo)conservatives supporting the war as
an excellent idea (e.g., Bush) and liberals attacking it as a blunder, a
mistake, too expensive, unwinnable, etc.  (e.g., some Democrats and Kerry,
sometimes).  What is remarkable is that, all along, the third position,
that the war is immoral, has been represented -- on the (undoubted) Left
(e.g., Chomsky), but also on the Right, by the Paleocons, who despised and
attacked the Neocon analysis precisely for being unethical, from the time
of the first Gulf War on.  Which did "more," the Right or Left, may be
statistically difficult to discover, but I think the note was sounded
louder and more frequently by the Paleocons -- often admittedly joined to
other positions that I think we would both reject.

[4. TAD] Do these points "relate to the assumptions behind our work" as an
anti-war group? Perhaps.  In the absence of a reasonable accurate analysis
of the situation, all the good will in the world will only make mistakes,
so I suppose "It is good to get them on the table."

Regards, Carl


On Sun, 17 Oct 2004, Al Kagan wrote:

> I would like to respond to the discussion around EC and AWARE process.
> 
> First of all, I want to address Robert Dunn. I want him to realize
> that although he has apologized, it is not OK to send such messages
> and then think that all can be righted by sending an apology.  AWARE
> has patiently worked with Robert over a long period of time. Whatever
> his new political perspective is in his new place of residence, I
> would have though Robert would have some warm feelings for us.  As far
> as I am concerned, Robert should keep his further comments off the
> AWARE list.
> 
> Carl has made some political assertions that need to be addressed. I
> certainly don’t want to debate EC with him since his opinions are his
> own and are long-standing. There is obviously room in AWARE for people
> with various views.  We established the 90% rule in order to
> accommodate this diversity while also being able to take positions and
> act when the overwhelming majority are in support.  Whether or not
> Carl was in attendance when we made this process decision seems
> unimportant.  I hope he can accommodate himself to the will of the
> organization, and I hope he will stop protesting the 90% rule.
> 
> Carl asserts that there is more principled criticism of the neoco
> program and the Iraq war on the Right than on the Left.  He states
> that the Left has been reduced to 2 groups, the liberal imperialists
> and the defenders of identity politics, and that Noam Chomsky falls
> outside these two groups.
> 
> First of all, it seems to me that Chomsky is highly regarded
> throughout the Left and he is therefore quite in the Left mainstream.  
> It seems bizarre to me that he could be considered in any other way.
> 
> Secondly, I don’t understand how liberal imperialists could ever be
> considered part of the Left. By definition, liberals are not leftists.
> 
> Thirdly, Carl seems to disparage “identity politics.” If by this he
> means groups that identity along lines of race, gender, or sexual
> orientation, he is right that there is a wide diversity of such groups
> within the Left.  There is a reason why such groups exist, namely
> because people in these groups are systematically discriminated
> against and repressed by the mainstream society.  Naturally people
> will organize to defend their collective rights based on the nature of
> the oppression. So it my view, there is nothing wrong with “identity
> politics.” In fact, I wish that AWARE was more sensitive to these
> issues in general. I think this is one of our weaknesses.
> 
> Finally, I am very surprised to see that Carl thinks the Right has
> criticized the war more than the Left.  Unless this refers to some
> kind of theoretical armchair discussions of which I am not aware, it
> also seems absurd on its face. Just who is it that goes out all over
> the country (and world) to protest the war? Just look at our own local
> situation for example, or look at who organizes the huge Washington
> protests.  Do we see rightists coming out in any large numbers to
> actually protest the war?  I think not.
> 
> The above points relate to the assumptions behind our work. I think it
> is good to get them on the table.
>