[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Fw: Orthodoxy vs. style

[Mike Lehman]

Carl,
Since you're wanting to put words in my mouth -- Gee, doesn't that sound 
like a habit to many who know you? -- I will respond to your latest 
cynical, feeble attempt at moral one-upmanship by noting I frankly don't 
care one way or the other if some folks think the most important thing 
they can do right now is rehash an all-too-familiar story -- 
intellectuals focusing on what troubles them and not on what troubles 
the working class.
Mike

On 3/25/2013 11:49 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> The disagreement is about the account of liberals and the left given in the Stauber 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/>) and by Chomsky (see below).
>
> David and I think that Stauber is correct, and Mike and his colleagues in "Socialist Forum" apparently don't. But Mike's correspondence on the matter seems to illustrate Glenn Greenwald's recent observation that "The more one dissents from political orthodoxies, the more the attacks focus on personality, style and character" <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-chomsky-guardian-personality>.
>
> What's important is what Stauber said, and whether it's accurate. We shouldn't be supporting an administration of assassination, austerity, and anti-enviromentalism - as the "progressive movement" does.  --CGE
>
> ==============
> Chomsky said the following in an interview five years ago:
>
> "I should say that the place where I am most feared and despised is probably in left liberal intellectual circles. If you want to see a graphic indication of this, take a look at one of my favorite journal covers, which is framed and posted right outside my door. It’s the more or less official journal of left liberal intellectuals, The American Prospect, and the cover depicts the terrible circumstances in which they try to survive – the enormous forces that are virtually destroying them.
>
> "In the picture, two figures are depicted; two faces, sneering and angry. On one side is Dick Cheney and the Pentagon, on the other side is me. The left liberal intellectuals are caught between these two huge forces. This depiction is indicative of the paranoia and concern that there might be some small break in orthodoxy. The liberal intellectuals (and not just in the United States) are typically the guardians at the gates: we’ll go this far, but not one millimeter farther; and it’s terrifying to think that somebody might go a millimeter farther. This extends throughout the major media too. So, yes, the United States is a very free country, in fact it’s the freest country in the world. I don’t think freedom of speech, for example, is protected anywhere in the world as much as it is here. But it’s a very managed society, it’s a business-run society, carefully managed, with strict doctrinal requirements and no deviation tolerated – this would be too dangerous.
>
> "One of the reasons it’s too dangerous is that the political establishment, both political parties and the political class, is, on many major issues, well to the right of the population. On health care, for example, ... the population is to the left of the establishment, and has been so forever. And the same is true for many other issues. So, permitting issues to be discussed is threatening, and permitting deviation from a kind of party line is dangerous and has to be carefully controlled..."
>
> <http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20080718.htm>
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> David,
>> Given Carl raised much of this, I assumed we were continuing that conversation, which I didn't want to do with Carl at the moment, given I was at the point of being grossly impolite (which Carl is probably thrilled to hear, as that seems to be his main accomplishment when he goes about shoving sticks in people's eyes.) My apologies if my mood rubbed off in answering you, as I prefer my conversations without a sharp stick in the eye. I'm not even sure I can refrain from myself here, so bear with me and believe I'm not saying this stuff just to push someone's button.
>>
>> On 3/24/2013 2:12 PM, David Johnson wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>   
>>>   
>>> Your missing the point !
>>>   
>>> I am NOT " attacking " anybody on the Left !
>> I guess maybe you feel MJ and The Nation aren't on "the Left" but I'd argue they are part of "the left" whether you intend to attack them or not.
>>>   
>>> I think we have amisunderstanding about terminology.
>>>   
>>> A collaborationist is one who supports the current corporate State, and does NOT want to enpower Working people or end capitalism.
>>> In particular those in positions in power in ; the democratic party, certain Labor Unions, and the so called " progressive " magazines and non-profit organizations, that have in the past and continue to sell-out or mis-inform their ; constituents, members, readers.
>> While most of those folks would quibble at allegations of their support for "the current corporate State" I can see the point of viewing them in that light, even though I don't necessarily believe that is always something they consciously do as you cast it here.
>>
>> On the other hand, do they really believe they do "NOT want to empower Working people"? I would find that even more baffling than assertions they somehow aren't part of the left. They may be deluded about the results of some of their positions, but I just don't believe they are out to disempower the working class. That, along with ending capitalism, is the sort of thing they may fear to assert, given the crushing power of the governing elites to marginalize anyone who either superficially or fundamentally questions the ruling order. They have assessed the same group of circumstances as you, Carl or the rest of us sees and chosen a different tack. Is this some sort of betrayal? Only if we see the left as a small group of tactically rigid individuals more committed to ideological purity than they are to practical effectiveness.
>>>   
>>> I honestly can't believe I am having this conversation with you Mike.
>>> You should know what I am talking about.
>>>   
>>> If you want, I will go into more detail. but alot of times these sort of misunderstandings happen because of a difference of opinion on tactics or definitions.
>>>   
>>> I don't want to " purge " anybody.
>>> I just want to talk tactics and expose the deceivers in positions of power who COLLABORATE with the corporate interests and sell US out.
>>>   
>>> What's the misunderstanding here ?
>> Maybe it's one of priorities. My main priority is getting the media and political tools into the hands of working people. Frankly, there's more than enough effort being put into anxieties over the loyalty, beliefs, and ideological correctness of those who are closest to us politically. Hell, Carl can carry all that water in his pail alone -- without any encouragement. There is no need to encourage or even focus on such a short-sighted  and politically sterile goal, given the many, many other things the left needs to get its head around.
>>
>> On the other hand, the biggest failure of the left in this country is it's inability to communicate with large sectors of the working class. Maintaining that the best thing we can do for them is to engage in an endless internecine argument over splitting hairs most of them haven't a clue of what we're talking about when we engage in this practice of "Put Circular Firing Squads First!" is counter-productive. In fact, if we look back at the history of the US left over the last half-century, is it any wonder that most people just go, if they go at all, to the voting booth to pull the lever for D or R and dismiss anything else as just too complicated to bother with thinking about?
>>
>> Thus my concern with some folk's focus on endless criticism of everyone they see to their personal "right". If I saw them building up as fast as they tear down, I could be convinced of their sincerity and -- perhaps -- even their righteousness and the practicality of accomplishing something with that. But I see so much whining and so little constructive work on the part of a few that it just strikes me they enjoy the fight more than they desire progress, incremental  or revolutionary. Not you, mind you, but that's the clear preference for  a few of us. I always thought the Sparts or RCP were big enough to serve those kind of folks, but guess not.
>>>   
>>> I am NOT talking about individual Working people like us who want to enpower Working people and end the control of the corporate state.
>>>   
>>> I am talking about the Barack Obamas, the Nancy Pelosi's, the Doug McCarrons and the Andy Sterns of this country.
>>>   
>>> Comradely
>>>   
>>> David Johnson
>> If people wanted to spend 10% of their efforts on addressing or criticizing the problem of those folks representing "us" or "them" or whoever, that's fine by me. But when it reaches levels of 75%, 80%, or higher in the effort expended, we're running into a dead end. There's little need to encourage additional criticism from thoughtful people and even less need of it FOR thoughtful people, but as I noted before it is easy pickings. What's harder is communicating with the masses and producing a radical, yet persuasive vision that grows the left. Deciding who doesn't belong among us? That's just dividing us against ourselves. The Man is laughing all the way to the bank when he hears about the need to sort out our friends from our friends.
>>
>> Why did I term it "FOR thoughtful people"? Because I'm pretty sure folks on this list are thoughtful people. Carl's endless war on Obama on the friggin' Socialist Forum list implies, whatever his intent, that we're a bunch of thoughtless people who enjoy nothing better than getting up in the morning to help Obama kill more babies...
>>
>> And, yes, that sounds as stupid as it is (was). If Carl wants to wallow in that, fine, but I think whatever little SF may have gained from putting up with obsessive screeds like that was many, many posts of essentially the same message, over and over, long ago. Even worse, hearing that sort of stuff over and over was actually starting to make me feel a little sorry for those he attacks, because of his lack of any kind of perspective on what is politically effective versus whatever it is he is trying to accomplish other than making himself feel like he's done his part.
>>
>> Why do I get so incensed about something in which Carl represents the latest iteration of a long tradition on the US left? Because it ultimately makes what we need to accomplish more difficult. Like it or not, the right has long held the trademark in the US of attacking government of any kind as oppressive. I know those concerns on that     side of the political equation are bogus. Why do some people on the left (and I definitely argue that the Dems belong in this group along with -- oh, the irony -- Carl)  feel that joining them in attacking the general idea that the poeple's will expressed through government might represent a solution to any of our problems? All I know is that the left needs to figure out what we can build, not what we can attack, if there is any hope at all of progress or even persuading more to join us in building something better.
>>
>> Confining ourselves to arguing about who has the right party line is most unlikely to get anyone interested in what we have to offer. Makes a few of us feel good, but it accomplishes nothing.
>>
>> Is this an argument that we shouldn't criticize O. & Co? Not at all, but unless such criticism is accompanied by considerably more balance in the discussion of what it's effective to do (and endlessly browbeating your comrades just isn't), what will CHANGE things, then it tends to degenerate into pointless mental masturbation -- where we're all sure exactly how many people feel better afterwards -- the ONE person who chooses to engage in it.
>> Mike
>>
>>>   
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Mike Lehman
>>> To: sf-core
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:17 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [sf-core] Fw: [Peace-discuss] Orthodoxy vs. style
>>>
>>> If it helps, I dropped my sub to The Nation in the early 80s when they were whining about some very basic measures the Sandinistas took during the early stages of the contra war (1982? 83?) But to be fair to the Nation, it sounds like they corrected the claim Chomsky was a "self-hating Jew" -- although that hardly mollifies the many other reasons to find issue with them.
>>>
>>> That said...
>>>
>>> David,
>>> I personally don't understand the obsession with delineating between pseudo-progressivism/"collaborationists" (whatever that actually is) and actual radical politics. If anything, cleaning up the "progressive establishment" doesn't rate the expenditure of the limited resources the left has in the country, let alone in this county. There are far more important things to do.
>>>
>>> So what would change if we were to somehow "defeat" these folks who can't find the right party line (at least according to some of us)?
>>>
>>> Nothing.
>>>
>>> We'd still face the all very real evils that exist unchecked under capitalism.
>>>
>>> Do these people somehow represent a medium by which to address the masses that if only we were able to seize it, would it be the first step to socialism (or even liberalism for that matter, despite the fulminations against it)?
>>>
>>> Not a chance.
>>>
>>> If we want things to change, we need to present a viable, growing alternative. Do either pseudo-progressivism or an implacable line of attack on it represent something that will lead to change?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Just equally sterile versions of the same dead-end. Latching ourselves into a death spiral with some folks' political opponents is far more distraction than viable strategy.
>>>
>>> I suggest that we focus our efforts on constructive engagement with the many forces opposed the state-sanctioned exploitation of the 99% in order to bring about change to defeat those who hold our society back from being free, equal and just. That's what we need to do, rather than in seeing how much of the left we don't like that we can argue into submission. That changes nothing, not a damn thing, even were it to succeed.
>>>
>>> It's the lowest of low-hanging fruit to focus on the "collaborationists" -- if that constitutes the bulk of our concerns, we're no more likely to present a compelling argument for change than they do to the average person in the streets. That will achieve nothing, meanwhile being a waste of time and resources.
>>>
>>> Now, if we win a revolution and should be so foolish as to think we need a NKVD to suss out all the class traitors...
>>> Yeah, everyone with any sense would say, "No!"
>>> So what does doing basically the same thing at the front end of this process get us? We simply get no revolution, rather than a revolution with a bad end we could easily avoid.
>>>
>>> If you want a revolution, don't put the cart in front of the horse.
>>> The idea that good management of our resources requires the beatings to continue until morale improves is just flaky.
>>> If we haven't bothered to dig our own well, why do we think pissing in someone else's will mean tapwater at home?
>>>
>>> Does Chomsky even do this sort of thing? My experience is that he avoids it, he's got plenty to say without even going there. I think he sets a fine example, I only wish more were as conscientious as he in keeping his focus on what matters.
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On 3/24/2013 11:50 AM, David Johnson wrote:
>>>>   " I note this to avoid any confusion, not because it affects any of the points I have raised here, especially the inaccurate attribution to the Nation as having called Chomsky a "self-hating Jew".
>>>> Exactley !
>>>>   
>>>> The point is Mike, NOT attacks on others on the Left, but on liberal collaborationists and their propoganda publications like THE NATION, MOTHER JONES, etc.
>>>> I use to subscribe and enjoy reading both, but in recent years, even though occasionaly they will have a decent article, they have been more often than not, appologists for the democrats, sell-out union " leaderships ", and in general defenders of the American and global capitalist system.
>>>> As a Socialist and a former Green Mike, I am certain you know what I am talking about.
>>>> The Guardian however still has more good journalism than bad, heads and shoulders above the New York Times, and the above mentioned so called " progressive " magazines.
>>>> The only thing we have comparable to the Guardian in the U.S. at this point in time is occasional good journalism from ROLLING STONE and THE NEW YORKER, also occasionaly SALON.COM and THE ATLANTIC.
>>>> Otherwise it is the iron curtain of U.S. corporate media and their junior partner liberal gate keepers that use the distraction of identity politics and the fear mongering of the corporate controlled DNC.
>>>>   
>>>> Comradely
>>>>   
>>>> David J.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Mike Lehman
>>>> To: sf-core
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:56 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [sf-core] Fw: [Peace-discuss] Orthodoxy vs. style
>>>>
>>>> David,
>>>> To be fair to the Guardian, they also printed Greenwald's critique and corrected an error or two in the original article that Glenn discusses at the end of this column.
>>>>
>>>> What's interesting about Chomsky is that he keeps his focus on the problems at hand, rather than attacking those on the left that he might disagree with. It's the personal attacks on him that stand out, rather than something he engages in against others. You may not like what he has to say, but the focus stays on the topic at hand, rather than on Chomsky's "style."
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On 3/24/2013 9:40 AM, David Johnson wrote:
>>>>> The Guardian's Aida Edemariam interviewed him ( Chomsky ) in London and produced an article, published Saturday morning.
>>>>> " So to recap: Chomsky is a sarcastic, angry, soporific, scowling, sneering self-hating Jew, devoid of hope and speaking from hell, whose alpha-male brutality drives him to win at all costs, and who imposes on the world disappointingly crude and simplistic arguments to the point where he is so inconsequential that one wonders whether he has ever changed even a single thing in his 60 years of political work."
>>>>>   
>>>>> Unbelievable characterization of Noam Chomsky from a newspaper ( The Guardian ) which over the years has done some great journalism.
>>>>> I mean, have you ever seen Chomsky speak ?
>>>>>   
>>>>> David Johnson
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: C. G. Estabrook
>>>>> To: Peace-discuss List
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:26 PM
>>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Orthodoxy vs. style
>>>>>
>>>>> How Noam Chomsky is discussed
>>>>> The more one dissents from political orthodoxies, the more the attacks focus on personality, style and character
>>>>> • <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
>