First: I've been hearing a lot of ridiculous chatter of late concerning the silly claim that Bush and McCain are Marxists because of the 'nationalization' of AIG, Freddie Mac, etc. (Here's a link to such nonsense if one is interested: (http://www.democrats.com/mccain-is-a-marxist). But I for one will need someone to connect the dots: how is it that 'trickle up' economics - whereby taxpayers bail out the wealthy as is happening with this recent financial rescue plan - helps the working class? Well, in short, it doesn't. There's nothing remotely socialist about this rescue. Indeed, the Marxist position would be to let the banks fail, allow investment portfolios to collapse and property values to plumet, which in turn would help to increase class consciousness and further revolutionary tendencies. However, this 'rescue plan' is just another example of the ruling class wielding the state as a tool by which to secure and maintain its dominant position. So all of you twits that think 'state intervention = socialism': you best be thankful that the state has once again come to rescue your greedy asses so you can continue to exploit the poor. But on to the main point of this entry...
Second: Back on September 2nd I made the mistake of 'endorsing' Obama. Now I realize that at this point in my ascension to supreme overlord my endorsement for president might not count for much, but I still think it necessary to admit my error and offer this correction:
Attention rational adults: we must work together to stop Obama from winning the presidency, and thus, we must elect John McCain.
I realize this pronouncement might come as a shock to most, so I'll try and address some likely critiques.
1) 'Palin will be too close to the presidency, so vote for Obama.'
right, I know Palin's nuts. But I also know that I'm voting for the top of the ticket, not the bottom. The contest is really Obama vs McCain, not Biden vs Palin or Obama vs Palin. There's no guarantee that McCain is going to die in office, and provided he lives, Palin really isn't too much of a problem (actually, she's a bit of a booby prize for us to laugh at for the next 4 years). And for the sake of argument lets assume that McCain does crap out sometime during his term - well, Palin will still have to deal with a democratic congress which will likely pick up an overwhelming majority. Further, she will appoint a VP who will a) likely be selected by republican party elites, and b) control her like a (maverick) puppet. So really, who gives a shit. Forget Palin... too many variables to even worry about her being 'a heartbeat away from the presidency'.
2) 'Obama's the democratic nominee, and if you're not a republican you have to vote for the democrat.'
Obama sucks: the reality is, Obama should never have gotten the democratic nomination in the first place. Aside from his eloquent speeches, his policies aren't all that exciting, his health care plan is too centrist, he lacks experience, he's power hungry, and he's done little to unite the democratic party. Considering the state of the union, he should be destroying McCain in the polls. But instead he can barely eek out a 5 point lead over a 72 year old mentally unstable cancer ridden ex fighter jock. Obama is totally lame, and Biden was a uber-shitty VP choice. The democratic ticket is pathetic and doesn't deserve my vote or yours. This is our chance to punish the democratic party for moving towards the center and turning its back on the working class. Say 'No!' to Obama.
3) 'McCain will screw the country up more, so vote for Obama.'
The country is in shambles and the republicans put us there, so I think it's only fair to let a republican try and fix this mess. But this problem needs to be assessed on two fronts: a) domestically, I'm not sure that anyone can do a whole lot short term: the crisis is global, and it's going to continue to spread. (Also, the invisible hand of the economy will probably lead to green technologies no matter who gets elected, and Obama's pandering to the center has diluted his former vanguard-position on that front.) Regarding b) foreign policy: I'm not so sure that either of these guys should be regarded as 'experts'. McCain's still trying to win the Vietnam war, and Obama... well, who knows what Obama will do since he's never really done anything. It's a crap shoot with either of these guys, so the foreign policy card really shouldn't sway anyone's decision.
At the end of the day, I think things will play out as follows:
If Obama gets elected: in four more years, the state of the union will still be bleak. However, the democratic congress will have made significant inroads which will position the US for an impending turn around. But since voting public is half retarded, they'll be disappointed in the lack of immediate progress and thus vote in a republican executive (maybe Palin herself!) and perhaps even a republican congress. The democratic brand will be horribly tarnished, and the republicans will be reinstalled as heroes. The historic opportunity for the left will have been squandered.
If McCain gets elected: in four more years, the state of the union will still be bleak. However, the democratic congress will have made significant inroads which will position the US for an impending turn around. Further, democrats will have acted as a check on the McCain/Palin administration, acting as a lens by which to focus attention on republican partisanship and corruption. Though congressional popularity will still be low, this will be linked to general disdain for the republican administration. The 2012 elections will therefore be a slaughter. The republican brand becomes more toxic than Courtney Love's panties, allowing for the democrats to not only claim lasting hegemony, but also move significantly towards the left. Hillary runs again in 2012 and wins, and being the shrewder politician who values party unity over personal power, she selects Obama to be her VP. After 8 years of being educated and gaining experience, he finally succeeds her in 2020.
So now doesn't it all make sense?
McCain 2008!
30 comments:
assuming that voting mccain is the long-term best bet for the marxist: is this another example of the insane things that marxism makes people do?
Not at all... Just the opposite, in fact. Why is it insane to prefer policies that might actually serve to heighten class consciousness to those which only serve to stifle solidarity? Obama and McCain both serve the interest of big business above that of humanitas. The biggest difference between them, however, is that Obama pretends to be a populist, which I sincerely doubt. What I think is insane is to 'sincerely' vote for either candidate. I'm voting for McCain 'ironically', which should give you a big Straussian boner.
actually, the straussian/ironist boner is this: leftists voting conservative because they think it is in the service of radical myths like class consciousness, etc. so, yeah, a boner for the conservatives, indeed!
i think you've got a different decoder ring than i do. when did the goal of human solidarity move to the 'myth' category? you sound like a positivist.
i didn't say that the "goal of human solidarity" is a myth. rather, i said that "class consciousness" is a myth. but, ok, just take out the word 'myth':
actually, the straussian/ironist boner is this: leftists voting conservative because they think it is in the service of class consciousness. so, yeah, a boner for the conservatives, indeed!
i'm still confused, though: is voting for mccain an expression of the true class interests of the proletariat? is this what someone whose criteria for choosing a candidate include 'class consciousness' and 'solidarity' should do?
or is it this:
while obama pretends to be populist and really is not, mccain does not pretend to be at all. so, since mccain is more honest, we should vote for him. is this what you are saying?
secondly: i'd much rather sound like a positivist who votes for obama than a marxist who votes for mccain.
well i admit that i've collapsed solidarity and class consciousness, but that's mainly due to the fact that the idea of 'class' in Marx has to be expanded to make any sense these days.
but the main idea is this: voting for obama is like putting a bandaid on shark bite (to use a stupid analogy). i'm certainly not saying that mccain is more honest (far from it). i'm saying that if we vote for obama, nothing is really going to change. rather, if we vote for mccain, the whole capitalist system will likely explode, ushering in something qualitatively different. Already major financial countries/players are calling for a rebuilding of the world's financial institutions - a move that hasn't been seen since Bretton Woods. So I say, should those of us on the far left try to stop the contradictions within capital from becoming self-evident (by voting for Obama), or should we encourage those contradictions by voting in the nominee most likely to continue the policies of speculative capital (McCain)?
Well, if you want actual change, vote McCain. If you really enjoy our 2 party capitalist system, go ahead and vote for Obama. The latter is a gift from the capitalist gods, cause he's sure to save the system of usury, exploitation, etc. At least with McCain, there's a better chance that people will stand up and say 'enough!' Of course, it will have to get worse before it gets better, but we've all seen enough Rocky movies to know that it'll all work out in the end.
so a vote for mccain will lead to the collapse of capitalism, and this collapse will lead to the rise of socialism?
maybe i give global capitalism more credit than you do: i don't think that mccain becoming president will bring it down.
and this only helps to bring out my initial statement: marxism makes people do insane things. if you think that voting for mccain will lead to socialism, then....
i never said a vote for mccain will lead to socialism. i said it will increase class consciousness and solidarity, which will benefit the left more than the instant gratification of a vote for supersmug obama.
however, i'm sure not convinced that these ole united states, and moreover, that global capitalism, is indefinite. but it's sure going to last a lot longer when all the marxists are seduced by its soothing lull (i think i hear it now: 'come closer, eliott, come closer').
so you're saying that the worse things get, the more class consciousness and solidarity will increase. using these terms this time, i'm still trying to get at the same problem:
how WORSE do things have to get before one realizes that they should abandon concepts like class consciousness (and the ideology it is associated with)? when do things get so bad that the marxist thinks: maybe something is wrong with my ideology and my goal for, i keep having to advocate what makes the situation WORSE.
i also don't think that capitalism is forever. i just don't think that a vote for mccain is a long-term vote against capitalism.
You seem to think that by voting for Obama you're not making the situation worse. I would disagree. I'm beginning to think that our point of contention is that our time horizon is different. Anyway, I'm claiming that a vote for Obama perpetuates the status quo, a situation I don't think is all rainbows and ice cream. If you like it, vote for Obama. I don't like the status quo, so I'm voting for McCain. (I've already been over the reasons why this reasoning is counterintuitive so I won't go over it again.)
As for Marxists having to advocate what makes the situation worse: maybe i've forgotten about all of those historical precedents in which those who hold power benevolently and altruistically agitated for those who are less fortunate. hmmm... social change is so often a top-down affair, no? so please remind me of a few of those instances.
so you don't think capitalism will last forever, but you also don't think anyone should do anything to bring about its demise? it will just spontaneously collapse? how exactly is that going to work out?
talk about insanity!
i won't respond to the questions about the demise of capitalism. the problem here is that you are posing the question of who one should vote for in this election within this marxist framework. to me, the framework is faulty. now, i realize the marxist position toward their opponents: non-marxists have false-consiousness, etc, etc: i realize the dogmatism for i was once held in its grip. this election isn't about walking any sort of outmoded, historical marxist line, though. this is about real world politics.
also, you've changed your argument every time. NOW you're saying that you are voting for mccain because he does not represent the status quo, while obama does. really?!?!
are you seriously voting for mccain?
i never said anyone had false consciousness, and i'm not changing my argument. i'm totally saying that mccain represents the status quo as does obama (they aren't mutually exclusive). obama and mccain will both perpetuate the status quo *of this particular type of capitalism*, but mccain's policies are more likely to result in market failures which will result in a more active working class/greater human solidarity. obama will shore things up... the best he's ever going to to be is another bill clinton.
this election isn't about real world politics as long as you're content with our crappy two party system. the surest way to keep said system in place is to elect obama. nothings ever going to change with that guy. elect mccain, and in four years he will have screwed things up so bad that this current pussy move to center-left will be remembered as a joke. It will be the right that has to come crawling towards the center... and probably a bit over the line at that.
am i seriously voting for mccain. yeah. but not that it matters as that im sure obama's going to win.
I am confused:
t1: "Anyway, I'm claiming that a vote for Obama perpetuates the status quo, a situation I don't think is all rainbows and ice cream. If you like it, vote for Obama. I don't like the status quo, so I'm voting for McCain."
t2: "i'm totally saying that mccain represents the status quo as does obama (they aren't mutually exclusive). obama and mccain will both perpetuate the status quo."
Yeah, maybe, like you said, our "time horizon is different." Anyway, there is no need to debate this anymore. Even though Obama will win, it does matter who you vote for. It says a lot about who you are and the interests that you represent. I don't usually go around to conservative, right-wing, blogs (or humans) and try to initiate conversations with people who I know are beyond reason, so consider this the end.
well, i think you're taking my points out of context. but that's my fault, i haven't been constructing a detailed philosophical argument here. but the points follow thusly:
1. our system is at a point of potential collapse
2. both candidates represent no real change
3. mccain's policy guarantees more failed policy, which will only exacerbate the growing cleavage between 'classes' (in a very broad and general sense), which will further undermine faith in reified markets
4. obama's policy will shore up market stability, and thus, perpetuate free markets - though with some semblance of oversight (which will simply be undone by the next republican administration). hence, the growing class solidarity that we are currently witnessing will disintegrate as the economic situation improves. (but as we know, an improved financial situation is still greatly skewed towards the wealthy who horde the majority of wealth)
5. so by electing mccain, i suspect the crisis will worsen, thereby creating a qualitative shift in market ideology. the entire logic of the markets as we know it will collapse. we might even get a return to keyensianism, or some variant thereof.
6. obama will therefore save capital from its own impending destruction, while mccain will likely help facilitate said destruction.
7. i AM NOT saying that socialism is right around the corner. what i am saying is that a more benign form of capitalism is (think the Scandinavian model; increased decommodification; etc).
8. so if you're implying that i'm 'beyond reason' because i don't agree with your obamaphilia, it sounds like it's you - not me - who is playing the false consciousness card.
slut
oh, by the way, this is fun so thanks for participating in the agora!
The 'beyond reason' claim I made has nothing to do with me being an Obamaphiliac. Rather, it's more in relation to statements that you have made, like this one:
"Well, if you want actual change, vote McCain. If you really enjoy our 2 party capitalist system, go ahead and vote for Obama."
How much bullshit is packed into these two sentences, into this false binary?
1) McCain will bring about actual change
2) Obama will perpetuate the two party political system and capitalism
3) So, a vote for McCain will bring about the end of the two party system; a vote for McCain will bring about a multiple, more diverse, party system in the US.
4) A vote for McCain is a vote against the perpetuation of the capitalist system; a vote for McCain will lead us, if not to socialism, then to some sort of Scandanavian economic model.
Dude. WTF?
OMG, WAIT, I just noticed that you also said this:
"both candidates represent no real change"
This contradicts the last statement I quoted you on. Again, my claim about 'beyond reason' has nothing to do with my Obamaphilia, but more to do with the substance and form of your arguments.
well, i think your ability to understand the substance and form of my argument is flawed, as that you're cherry picking lines - analytic style - from what was never mean to be a knock-down logically constructed argument.
God, you seem to think that I'm making an argument based on intentionality, as if what Obama and McCain claim they intend to do is what is actually going to happen. Are you that naive? I didn't even think I had to explain something so pedestrian. WTF indeed!
And were did I say anything about a more diverse party system, hector projector? I said 'if you're content with our current two party system', meaning, our current 2 parties that are left-center and far-right. I'm agitating for a move to the far left in the US.
You keep trying to put me in a box that you constructed, but in doing so, I don't think you're really getting what I'm saying.
your 4 premises should read as follows:
1) McCain will INADVERTENTLY bring about actual change through the continuation of failed economic policy
2) Obama will perpetuate the two party political system and capitalism BECAUSE HE FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVES IN FREE MARKETS
3) So, a vote for McCain will bring about and end to the two party system AS WE KNOW IT; a vote for McCain will bring about a multiple, more diverse, party system in the US. I NEVER SAID THIS... ALL YOU DUDE
4) A vote for McCain is a vote against the perpetuation of the capitalist system NOPE, WRONG AGAIN; A VOTE FOR MCCAIN WILL HIGHTEN THE AWARENESS OF THE INEQUALITIES INHERENT TO THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM. a vote for McCain will lead us TO FURTHER ECONOMIC TURMOIL, WHICH WILL FURTHER LEAD if not to socialism, then to A MORE BENEVOLENT FORM OF CAPITALISM, LIKE some sort of Scandanavian economic model.
i'm trying to be nice by entertaining this argument, but i don't think i can do it any longer. so i'll just treat you, the republican voter, in the way that you used to treat republican voters back when you seemed to be radical. i'm puzzled by how an intelligent person, who studies political science and proudly boasts his "radical" ego whenever he has the opportunity, could support this position.
if anyone else reads this, and if you think it is even worth communicating with a "marxist for mccain", perhaps you can pick up where i left off.
yeah, i too am puzzled by how you think that a radical should vote for a democrat. so i'll just treat you, the democratic voter, how you used to treat democratic voters when you seemed to be radical: radicals who vote democrat have simply been co-opted by the very system they claim to detest.
BTW, i don't proudly boast my 'radical ego'. I argue through well thought out positions which happen to be at odds with a state apparatus that (tacitly) perpetuates the capitalist mode of production. If you want to compartmentalize me, that's cool I guess. But it sure doesn't help us to reach an understanding.
just so it's clear: i do not want to reach an understanding.
further, consider this similar to that letter that wittgenstein wrote to russell.
well that's mature. why would anyone want to reach an understanding? that's especially interesting for you to say considering that you seem so content to work within the parameters of the american democracy. but whatevz.
as for the mysterious letter to which you refer: i haven't had a seminar on Wittgenstein, so i guess you can feel all smug in the fact that you've bested me with that reference.
CPUSA seems to have a different view...
"The Communist Party USA views the 2008 elections as a tremendous opportunity to defeat the policies of the right-wing Republicans and to move our country in a new progressive direction.
....
While we do not endorse any particular candidates, we do endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism."
wow, that's really good to know. I guess I should totally rethink my position. Thanks, anonymous!
On the other hand: As a democrat, I'm expected to fall in line with my party and endorse Obama. And as a communist, I apparently should fall in line and endorse Obama too. But as an independently-minded intellectual who will not be deceived by either of the hypocritical politicians put forth by either of our elite-run parties, I'll go ahead and put my money on the structural change which will only come about through economic collapse.
So go ahead CPUSA... support Obama. I'm sure he's going to drastically change global capitalism. After all, he's been a super progressive power-grabber during his brief political career.
But it seems to me that if "[the CPUSA] do[es] not endorse any particular candidates, [but they] do endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism.", then 4 more years of Bush policies would drive even more people to activism. And since we're not really at a critical mass YET, why not wait 4 more years so that the real goals of the CPUSA have a better chance of success?
Seems to me that the CPUSA has been co-opted by center-left 'progressive' democrats.
Have fun in the center, pinkos. I'm sure it will be chocked full of change.
I am not a regular reader of your blog, nor will I ever read this blog again after the right-wing nonsense I've read so far. I randomly came upon this blog while searching for some silly right-wing articles on the connection between Obama and Ayers.
As someone who has been involved in leftist politics, both legally and more radical direct action, I'm puzzled by how you could even consider yourself a leftist, let alone a Marxist. There is nothing "Marxist" about your argument. In fact, it is nihilistic and selfish.
By attempting to bring about even worse conditions you are overlooking the fact that a win for Obama will bring about substantive improvements in many poeple's lives (esp. the working class). They may be small in comparison to a "communist revolution" but they are practical improvements that we should all (at least those of us on the left) should be aiming for. How can you possibly think it is wise to make people's lives who are already bad (namely, the poor--and this will surely get worse under McCain) even worse just because this MIGHT (and it's a BIG might) bring about these super-progressive changes in the unforeseeable future? I have never heard of a leftist or a Marxist who turns his back on the very people who he or she is supposed to support.
If you are really a leftist and not some right winger on a mission to trick naive radicals, then you really ought to reconsider calling yourself a leftist.
did I ever say I was a Marxist? haha, just kidding.
I'm not sure if I should reply to this newest anonymous poster (or maybe it's the same one as before?), as that s/he already stated that s/he wouldn't ever read this blog again. But at the same time, s/he asked me a question so I assume s/he would like a response. (that pc shit's annoying, eh? next time leave a name please. you can even make it up... just so long as i have a gender pronoun to work with.)
The question: How can you possibly think it is wise to make people's lives who are already bad (namely, the poor--and this will surely get worse under McCain) even worse just because this MIGHT (and it's a BIG might) bring about these super-progressive changes in the unforeseeable future?
first, we're all working with assumptions here. you're assuming a lot of things too, so I'm not sure how fair it is to criticize my predictive abilities. but anyway...
second, I'm pretty sure Marx would assume that when class struggle occurs, it's not going to be pretty. For example (and from the Manifesto): 'The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.'
So I guess even for Marx some people's lives would get worse (when they struggled) in order to usher in some super-progressive changes.
But of course you're probably criticizing my seeming callousness because I've been arguing that it's necessary for conditions to continue to deteriorate so that the non-bourgeois classes will agitate for more socialistic reform. (I bet we could both agree that if revolution time comes, it would be ok for some skulls to crack.)
So let's see what Marx says about super-pre-revolution-party-time: It seems that even if it's not during the actual revolution that people's lives get worse, it seems that deteriorating conditions have to occur in order to get people 'motivated' so to speak (god I hate that phrase). Here, I'll let Marx explain it to you:
"Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."
So from the sound of it, even Marx thought things had to be pretty terrible before the bourgeoisie would be incompatible with society itself. So the question to you, anonymous, is this: do you really think we're already at that point? Well, I don't. But I do think McCain has a darn good chance of getting us there, especially with that babe Palin in tow.
Anyway. So you mentioned that you're puzzled as to how I can consider myself a leftist, let alone a Marxist. You say that there is nothing "Marxist" about my argument. (In fact, it is nihilistic and selfish.) Well, I'm going to go ahead and declare you wrong. And if you want to find some other 'Marxists' who could be used to justify my position, I suggest reading Gramsci, Poulantzas, or Lenin to name a few.
So rest assured, anonymous, I am not some right winger trying to trick naive radicals (though that would be fun). I'm just a PhD student who should be reading but is instead screwing around on the net.
One thing puzzles me though: you mention that you're not a regular reader of my blog, and that you only found it 'randomly' while searching for some silly right-wing articles on the connection between Obama and Ayers.
To be clear: so you're surfing the net to justify what you are so sure that you already know? Why would you do that? What are you planning to do with your new found stash of 'right wing propaganda'? Will you discuss it at your next Obamarama?
And what key words tipped you off to my site? I'd like to include more of them.
Thanks for playing.
Although American workers essentially favor middle class pragmatism over radical change, any theoretical vacuum of power risks being filled by a far more organized segment of the fringe, which wouldn't necessarily point to leftist organizations. Religious affiliates and right-wing militias have far stronger foot holds on the theoretical revolution, with a greater ownership of that presumed class consciousness than anything remotely Marxist or egalitarian. That space just doesn't exist as robustly on the American left. The internal contradiction of another American revolution would likely rest between right-wing, anti-intellectual nationalism and the progressive center, not workers under the radical left versus the state apparatus. But I digress. Even the failure of capitalist markets today would likely only produce a refinement of Keynesian economics. There would have to be several underlying conditions to a McCain presidency to produce revolutionary results and they simply aren't present. Social activism has the potential to generate realistic results under an Obama presidency, laying the foundation for rational economic change in the future and bolstering the support organizations that would be necessary to sustain this growth. Then, if you have a theoretical revolution, it succeeds without smashing the backs it's built on.
--Ryan (RVA)
Hey Ryan from RVA. I’m going to try and write this after one-too-many-beers at the UF/LSU game, so let’s hope it works out.
There's a lot of fancy-sounding jargon packed into your comment. Let’s see if I can unpack it and make some sense of what you have to say. I'll put your text in brackets, parse out your arguments, and follow up each segment with my own response.
1. [Although American workers essentially favor middle class pragmatism over radical change, any theoretical vacuum of power risks being filled by a far more organized segment of the fringe, which wouldn't necessarily point to leftist organizations.]
ok. sounds good. But I'm not sure what 'theoretical vacuum of power' you're referring to, nor do I understand how it fits together with what the American worker does or does not favor. The conversation has, heretofore, been about voting for McCain because he will 1) continue republican economic policies, which have 2) been instrumental in motivating leftist sentiments among the population. Thus, 3) this pattern will theoretically continue and lead to an even greater opportunity for the far-left in the future. No one has actually been arguing for street-fighting revolution, which I guess is what would lead to the power vacuum you mention. So I’ll need you to clarify your intent. And while you’re at it, I’m really not so sure what ‘middle class pragmatism’ is either, as that the middle class sure hasn’t been acting very ‘pragmatic’ over the last 8 years (at least). (And isn’t ‘pragmatic’ just another word for ‘reasonable’? Reasonable to whom?)
2. [Religious affiliates and right-wing militias have far stronger foot holds on the theoretical revolution, with a greater ownership of that presumed class consciousness than anything remotely Marxist or egalitarian.]
I don’t mean to seem dense, but this is a rather odd claim too. If we’re talking about the Marxist theoretical revolution, then I don’t think that religious affiliates and right-wing militias have much of a claim to it. And what right-wing militias, anyway? Did I miss something? Did a bunch of them spring up recently?
But anyway, if you’re arguing that a power-vacuum would more likely be filled by far-right than far-left ideologues, I ask you to justify your claim. If it’s historical precedent, then it’s somewhat irrelevant as that we are obviously dealing with a qualitatively different set of conditions than anything we’ve seen since the great depression. And given the sort of government programs that emerged from depression-era policies, I think the position I’ve been defending is more justifiable, namely: the left has moved too far to the center and is squandering this opportunity to agitate for more dynamic social change (I mean, look at Obama’s centrist policies. Some Democrats have been taking far-left positions regarding this economic crisis, but not Obama. And Hillary was obviously more socialist when it came to health care.) However, four more years of republican economic policy may very well provide the ‘capital’ necessary for far-left projects (note the ‘Scandinavian model’ I had mentioned earlier).
3. [That space just doesn't exist as robustly on the American left.]
Maybe not yet. My whole point is that right now we have the chance to create that space… or put better, there is a good chance for that space to emerge. A vote for Obama vitiates that chance.
4. [The internal contradiction of another American revolution would likely rest between right-wing, anti-intellectual nationalism and the progressive center, not workers under the radical left versus the state apparatus. But I digress.]
What is the ‘internal contradiction of another American revolution’? It sounds like you read some Marx, but don’t really know what the terms mean. Internal contradictions within the base/superstructure relation may lead to revolution, but the revolution itself isn’t the actual contradiction. (And when Marx discusses contradiction, it’s in reference to Hegel and the dialectical ‘law’ of the interpenetration of opposites.) If you’re just using a fancy term to say that two forces fight each other in order to make a revolution, then you should probably broaden your understanding of ‘revolution’ - or at least more modern theories of, oh, I don’t know, hegemonic blocks and socialist strategy maybe? (Look at the whole radical democracy project by Laclau and Mouffe.) I doubt in any case revolution would be as ‘us vs. them’ as the choices you have offered. Again, no one has placed ‘state smashing’ on the table. But I digress too.
5. [Even the failure of capitalist markets today would likely only produce a refinement of Keynesian economics.]
That’s what I’ve been arguing. My worry is that Obama will not even be ‘radical enough’ to refine Keynesian economics. I still believe that he is too centrist. Keynesian economic policy has been abandoned by Western Europe, and with it, the Welfare state has continually gone through retrenchment. However, with this global crisis European states are becoming increasingly frustrated with being constrained by speculative capital and unchecked markets. This is an historic opportunity to resurrect planned economies and put the death-nail in reified, fetishized capital.
Note: Obama will not allow capitalist markets to fail. McCain will not allow capitalist markets to fail. But republican economic policy contains the very internal contradictions that will cause capitalist markets to fail, but not if republican lose their hold on power before their disastrous policies have a chance to play themselves out. Obama’s policies will stop the contradiction that is already unfolding between base and superstructure, and that is a bad, bad thing.
6. [There would have to be several underlying conditions to a McCain presidency to produce revolutionary results and they simply aren't present.]
For real? You did read the post and comments before you replied, right? Did you consult some oracle in order to gain this insight?
7. [Social activism has the potential to generate realistic results under an Obama presidency, laying the foundation for rational economic change in the future and bolstering the support organizations that would be necessary to sustain this growth.]
Maybe. It’s true that lots of democratic theory has been built on these assumptions, such Dahl’s pluralism or Putnam’s civic associations to name just a couple. But I don’t buy it, because all of those theories presuppose that the population will work within the given power structure, which, in turn, will simply gradually change. But the structure doesn’t change. Even the greatest achievements for the left quickly come undone under the onslaught of capital. (Note for example, the European welfare state, US Great Society programs, and recent attempts to dismantle entitlements such as social security. Capital is relentless.)
8. [Then, if you have a theoretical revolution, it succeeds without smashing the backs it's built on.]
Actually, it would be a ‘concrete’ revolution at this point – not a theoretical one. But anyway, it seems like the left is always filled with this kind of optimism and hope when it has a chance to snag power, but at the end of the day, opportunity is always squandered. (This probably has something to do with the fact that the left has a larger coalition of partners to appease.) Sure no backs are smashed, but no significant change occurs either. Of course, one more time: I’ve advocated no back-smashing, state-smashing revolution. I don’t know why people want to keep plugging that in.
So one more time: go ahead and vote for Obama. But don’t be surprised when 4-8 years from now all you liberals are disillusioned that the great redeemer for the left turned out to be another power hungry politician filled with empty rhetoric. This is another Clinton administration waiting to happen. Get ready for the republicans to take congress in 2010/12.
Go Gators!
Post a Comment