[Marxism] "Pointed charge"?
mtomas3 at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 13 12:04:27 MST 2013
Dan (not really very proletarian, so, no, I won't use it to designate him):
"As I expected. All of the 'anti-vanguardist' rhetoric is pretty transparently just an obsession with an electoralist perspective which is completely out of touch with the state of the left in the US. . ."
1.) My point was simple as only one example (the SA campaign). ISO did not do very well here, but it is not my "obsession" only a simple point, which you decide to turn into a broad political statement about the "state of the left".
I actually do agree that the "left" is out of touch. It includes ISO and, for that matter, S-Alt as well as much of the sectarian left (which I define as groups "setting up shop" for a game of King of the ersatz Hill). "We" are out of touch and this incidence of finding some way NOT to show solidarity only demonstrates it. Really? So, the only reason ISO didn't endorse Sawant was because the letter was sent 2 weeks before the election? It doesn't "fly". In any case, even if S-Alt did not make the best effort (which I do not have any evidence to determine), wouldn't the response by ISO be a political response and not a "logistical" one? Wouldn't a "self-reflective" "open and comradely" group with no pretense to an "organizational silver bullet" be a bit more above all that? Wouldn't a revolutionary organization look at this situation and consider the opportunities for educating "leftists", activists, and emerging radicalizing layers of Seattle's working class in how to carry out principled solidarity and united independent political action?
Moreover, 2 weeks is not too long of a lead time (if indeed that was all there was), but it would not be that insurmountable if a revolutionary socialist organization with any principled form of a political program already had a clear understanding of the principles of solidarity and independent political action. It seems to me that for an accomplished Political and Central Committee with a framework for democracy, principle, and "open comradeliness" such a request would not be all that difficult--if, of course, such principles were the first things to come to their minds and not some knee-jerk territorialist sectarianism. After all, isn't that supposed to be an "advantage" of centralized system of "democracy"; to have the ability to respond to opportunities quickly? The issue is simple. Does ISO adhere to the principles of solidarity and independent political action. The 2012 elections were just one point in time and only one aspect albeit a heightened one because, after all, wouldn't you agree that it is not the "left's" sense of being out of touch that is the major problem of the working masses, but that of the working masses' all too strong belief in lesser-evilism and support to reformist capitalist politicians? Isn't the focus of a revolutionary organization to look outward to our revolutionary class and its allies? To consider how always we must find ways to bring the class that we defend and stand with to a greater understanding of THEIR historic role and not ours?
2. Just as a point of information, I do not belong to Socialist Alternative, don't agree with much of their mechanistic, micro-organizational pre-occupations, and will not join any small pretend-vanguard party--already been there, done that. I am waiting to see a real united revolutionary left initiative and you should have no doubt I will not shirk any opportunity to make us bigger by following revolutionary principles.
More information about the Marxism