Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 23, 2005 11:47:38 GMT -5
Carl Davidson has written a careful and thoughtful analysis of the American "right" as a whole.
nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/150847/index.php
Much more dubious is the strategic framework that he has chosen for fighting it.
Although he doesn't use the phrase "popular front"...that's what he's recommending.
For example, he wrote: Our main adversary is the anti-democratic right, which includes the war-making hegemonists, the NeoCons and much of the conservative right, especially the religious right in power. While we expose their roots in the most reactionary sectors of big capital, we are not opposing corporations or capitalism in general. The idea is to isolate and divide the right, defeating its components step by step. -- emphasis added.
Does that strategy work? Historically, I don't think it has...at best, it results in quasi-fascism (what bourgeois ideologues call "authoritarianism") rather than open and fully-developed fascism.
The reason that I think the "popular front" doesn't work is that it concedes too much to the enemy...it concedes the legitimacy of the existing order and attempts only to "save it" from something even worse.
Most of the forces proposed for inclusion in Davidson's "popular front" actually contain strong reactionary elements of their own. African-American preachers, for example, have rarely sided with black communities in open rebellion...preferring instead to "cool things down" and engage in deal-making with the white elite.
Likewise, that part of feminism with the resources to influence public discussion -- call it "corporate feminism" -- is essentially careerist in orientation. Their right to abortion on demand, for example, is not threatened by the Christian fascists...they'll buy a plane ticket to Europe.
Many of the existing trade unions are, more or less, openly pro-American imperialism. Imperialist war not only creates new high-paying jobs but shrinks the labor pool of young, lower-wage workers...exerting an upward pressure on wages. Smart union leaders know this.
In short, the "center" of American politics is pretty far towards the right...in and of itself. If the right were to "magically disappear", surprisingly little would actually change in what we see around us.
Davidson wrote: Defeating war and the danger of fascism requires removing the warmongers and budding fascists from positions of political power. There is no way to do this without a protracted, bottom-up battle to build independent electoral organization and to reform the election system itself in favor of wider, multiparty democracy. The progressive and democratic forces in America need their own political party, and the time to start building it is now. But in the meantime, as a broad nonpartisan alliance, there is every reason to select appropriate lists of candidates from all parties for the progressive grassroots organizations to elect, to bypass or to defeat. Through the experience of these campaigns, positive and negative, the strength and knowledge will be grown to carry on and win the battle for democracy on a much higher level.
In other words, a "popular front" exists for the purpose of winning elections.
There was a time when popular fronts did win elections, most notably in France.
Is that still possible now? If you look at what it actually requires -- in resources, media exposure, etc. -- to mount a credible election campaign in the United States, I don't think there is any practical way for us to do that any longer.
The "battle of democracy" is over...and we lost. When? Probably in 1948...if not much earlier.
Since then, whatever progressive changes that have taken place in the U.S. (a short list) have resulted from large-scale action "in the streets" or the obvious threat of such action.
A "popular front" could do that...but it runs counter to the "instinct" of popular-frontism. It's not something that people in popular fronts "naturally" turn towards.
So, what's my plan? I think we need a strategy of confrontation with the right...particularly that portion of it that is clearly Christian fascist. Every time their leaders show their faces in public, they should be met with angry demonstrations. When they show up at schools and universities, we should attempt to drive them out...just as if they were military recruiters. At such time as we may find ourselves in public debate with them, we should not "respect their religious convictions" but should instead attack their barbarous extravagance.
They constantly whine in public about "the attack on faith"...let's give the bastards something to really whine about!
I am not so bold as to claim that we can win such a war...the left is woefully weak in the present period.
But I think we "teach a better lesson" by going down fighting...than we would by going down whimpering.
New URL: The Redstar2000 Papers
Revolutionary Left Forums
nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/150847/index.php
Much more dubious is the strategic framework that he has chosen for fighting it.
Although he doesn't use the phrase "popular front"...that's what he's recommending.
For example, he wrote: Our main adversary is the anti-democratic right, which includes the war-making hegemonists, the NeoCons and much of the conservative right, especially the religious right in power. While we expose their roots in the most reactionary sectors of big capital, we are not opposing corporations or capitalism in general. The idea is to isolate and divide the right, defeating its components step by step. -- emphasis added.
Does that strategy work? Historically, I don't think it has...at best, it results in quasi-fascism (what bourgeois ideologues call "authoritarianism") rather than open and fully-developed fascism.
The reason that I think the "popular front" doesn't work is that it concedes too much to the enemy...it concedes the legitimacy of the existing order and attempts only to "save it" from something even worse.
Most of the forces proposed for inclusion in Davidson's "popular front" actually contain strong reactionary elements of their own. African-American preachers, for example, have rarely sided with black communities in open rebellion...preferring instead to "cool things down" and engage in deal-making with the white elite.
Likewise, that part of feminism with the resources to influence public discussion -- call it "corporate feminism" -- is essentially careerist in orientation. Their right to abortion on demand, for example, is not threatened by the Christian fascists...they'll buy a plane ticket to Europe.
Many of the existing trade unions are, more or less, openly pro-American imperialism. Imperialist war not only creates new high-paying jobs but shrinks the labor pool of young, lower-wage workers...exerting an upward pressure on wages. Smart union leaders know this.
In short, the "center" of American politics is pretty far towards the right...in and of itself. If the right were to "magically disappear", surprisingly little would actually change in what we see around us.
Davidson wrote: Defeating war and the danger of fascism requires removing the warmongers and budding fascists from positions of political power. There is no way to do this without a protracted, bottom-up battle to build independent electoral organization and to reform the election system itself in favor of wider, multiparty democracy. The progressive and democratic forces in America need their own political party, and the time to start building it is now. But in the meantime, as a broad nonpartisan alliance, there is every reason to select appropriate lists of candidates from all parties for the progressive grassroots organizations to elect, to bypass or to defeat. Through the experience of these campaigns, positive and negative, the strength and knowledge will be grown to carry on and win the battle for democracy on a much higher level.
In other words, a "popular front" exists for the purpose of winning elections.
There was a time when popular fronts did win elections, most notably in France.
Is that still possible now? If you look at what it actually requires -- in resources, media exposure, etc. -- to mount a credible election campaign in the United States, I don't think there is any practical way for us to do that any longer.
The "battle of democracy" is over...and we lost. When? Probably in 1948...if not much earlier.
Since then, whatever progressive changes that have taken place in the U.S. (a short list) have resulted from large-scale action "in the streets" or the obvious threat of such action.
A "popular front" could do that...but it runs counter to the "instinct" of popular-frontism. It's not something that people in popular fronts "naturally" turn towards.
So, what's my plan? I think we need a strategy of confrontation with the right...particularly that portion of it that is clearly Christian fascist. Every time their leaders show their faces in public, they should be met with angry demonstrations. When they show up at schools and universities, we should attempt to drive them out...just as if they were military recruiters. At such time as we may find ourselves in public debate with them, we should not "respect their religious convictions" but should instead attack their barbarous extravagance.
They constantly whine in public about "the attack on faith"...let's give the bastards something to really whine about!
I am not so bold as to claim that we can win such a war...the left is woefully weak in the present period.
But I think we "teach a better lesson" by going down fighting...than we would by going down whimpering.
New URL: The Redstar2000 Papers
Revolutionary Left Forums
