[Peace-discuss] [sftalk] [sf-core] More dead children on Obama's watch

[C. G. Estabrook]

Andrew--

I was delighted to discover a few years ago that the image ascribed to Mao Tse-tung - "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a thousand schools of thought contend" - was used by Clement of Alexandria in a similar fashion (in the 2nd century AD), about nascent Christianity. But surely neither man saw the contention as an end in itself: it was in aid of finding the right way forward for their respective political movements. 

Understanding the situation is crucial. In the absence of an accurate analysis, good will "to make the world better" can do the right thing only by accident. 

The argument in this email thread is about whether the analyses of liberalism and the left in the contemporary US are more or less the same, or contradictory. I think they're contradictory.

The left in America means opposition to the class-oppression of capitalism, joined to the recognition that US wars are in the interests only of the capitalist class. Liberalism is an attempt to meliorate capitalism (from whatever motive, including the defense of the capitalist order) and eliminate the excesses of the foreign policy of the US, seen as basically sound. (E.g., the late Anthony Lewis, the liberal extreme of NYT columnists, held long after the US war in Vietnam that the greatest international crime since WWII had been "a blundering attempt to do good.") 

The argument here began with John Stauber's important article, "The Progressive Movement is a PR Front for Rich Democrats" <http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-progressive-movement-is-a-pr-front-for-rich-democrats/>, which describes current liberal attempts to co-opt the left. It was just that sort of co-option of the anti-war movement that made Barack Obama president. (That he realized such a campaign would be necessary is clear from The Audacity of Hope: his lying pretense to be the peace candidate was his most audacious hope.) 

Americans are only slowly becoming aware of the conscious neoliberal campaign from the 1970s, designed to combat the American left that had emerged in the 1960s.  Neoliberalism meant, further, to reverse the gains in social support - such as social Security and Medicare - that American capitalism had had to concede in the generation after WWII. A series of neoliberal administrations (Republican and Democrat) over more than three decades - culminating in the current one - may well accomplish that goal, as they have destroyed unions and suppressed wages. And the neoliberal campaign has been quite conscious, if covert: see e.g. the Powell memo (1971) and Crozier et al. The Crisis of Democracy (1975) - the crisis being that the sixties had produced too much democracy...

Neoliberalism vs. the left is the battle by night that's going on in US politics, under the show of contests between safely neoliberal candidates like Romney and Obama. In spite of the corporate media, more Americans are realizing that the outcome of the latter makes little difference (cf. "hope and change" in 2008), but the outcome of the former is crucial. It's surely a mistake to pretend that liberals and the left are on the same side, even if they occasionally work together. 

So as not to disappoint you, I'll end with a typical appeal to authority (or at least to a good analysis) on that last point: see Chomsky on "goals and visions" in <http://www.chomsky.info/books/prospects01.htm>.  

--CGE

On Mar 28, 2013, at 10:16 PM, Dr. Andrew Ó Baoill <andrew at funferal.org> wrote:

> I've seen no one on SF lists support use of drones, whether responsible or not. Nor is this a list where you'll see much support for 'judicious' cuts to social spending. You may be mixing up this choir with another, less respectable, one with which you associate?
> 
> On the broader point, one reason I chose to associate with the SF while in CU, and to continue on the list after leaving town, is because while you've a range of perspectives, the focus has tended to be on where to find common ground, and what sort of actions are within the reach of this small, if impressive, group of individuals. How can group members collaborate to make the world a little better - understanding that we would like to make it a lot better? These are not laissez-faire liberals or couch activists, they are people who work in different ways to make the world better, and come together through the group to see how their combined efforts can achieve greater success. That pragmatism in action, incidentally, need not imply a belief that Obama is doing 'the best he can for the 99%.'
> 
> I'd also like to echo two points made by Mike earlier. First, one of the basic rules of organizing, and of persuasive rhetoric more generally, is to avoid openly showing your contempt for the people you're trying to persuade. I've no clever quote from Chomsky to go with this, but speaking truth to the non-powerful, in the form of accusing them of being collaborators, counter-revolutionaries, or West-Brits, is probably less useful than 'speaking truth to power' - where at least your actions might be inspiring to those who see them.
> 
> Second, I'm unsure whether the phrase is sufficiently orthodox for Carl, but I've long ago realized that in activism we must 'let a thousand flowers bloom.' Trying to establish a rank order of outrages to be righted is problematic enough, but second guessing the autonomy of another to decide how to spend their limited time, declaring that if they spend it primarily on an issue other than my favored cause they must be (collaborationist, etc. - see partial list above) is both arrogant and counterproductive. I don't have the time and energy to tutor Carl on effective rhetoric, but it starts with finding common ground with your audience, not with alienating them and using appeals to authority - even if that authority is Chomsky.
> 
> Andrew
> --
> Dr. Andrew Ó Baoill
> andrew at obaoill.net
> 
> On 28 Márta 2013, at 17:41, "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
> 
> > Does the choir believe that the administration's military and economic policies - assassination and austerity for short - should be reversed? 
> > 
> > I rather thought the choir lent "critical support" to those policies. E.g., drones should be used "responsibly," and judicious cuts should be made in "entitlements." 
> > 
> > Does the choir believe that the chief magistrate should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, including murder and violations of the Constitution?
> > 
> > I rather thought they would not support a call for Obama to be imprisoned along with Bush in The Hague, both awaiting trial for war crimes. (And they should be joined by others.) 
> > 
> > I think there are real differences between liberals and the left. Liberals think Obama is doing the best he can for the 99%, and the left sees him as the minion of the 1%.
> > 
> > There's a fairly clear choice between supporting and opposing the administration.
> > 
> > And I do think Obama fears public dissent and resistance, expressed in action and argument, and will do a great deal to nullify it. 
> > 
> > He knows that such opposition is the only real check on the exercise of US military and economic power - other than the resistance of our victims. 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mar 28, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> ...
> >> Carl,
> >> Everyone of us is acutely aware of this sort of stuff. You're preaching to the choir..
> >