Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiReflections on the US Social Forum: Three Cautions for the Future of the Left
A few weeks ago, I attended the first-ever United States Social Forum, June 27 to July 1, 2007 in Atlanta, Georgia. It was an awe-inspiring event, bringing together over 15,000 grassroots activists from every issue area and every corner of the United States. And while the conferences I'm used to anyway are populated by slick white men in suits who work for glossy advocacy organizations in Washington, the Social Forum was dominated by members of community-based organizations who more often wore colorful matching t-shirts detailing their group's origins and their proud participation in Atlanta. And as far as I could tell, most of the participants were people of color, again a far cry from the elite and exclusive gatherings that often claim to represent "the left".
Without question, we need a profound, broad-based movement for cultural, political and economic transformation of the United States - and we need it soon. And being at the US Social Forum prickled my skin with the inexplicable but tangible sense that a social justice movement in the United States is really possible. Like static electricity hanging pregnant in the air, there is an exciting potential for movement to spark.
But in addition to displaying the many parts of our social justice infrastructure up to the task --- grassroots organizing groups and popular education work and strong, community leaders humming all around us like charged particles --- the US Social Forum also revealed some of the worst of our field. Sectarian bad habits kept us fighting among ourselves and scrutinizing our own navels rather than using the historic gathering space of the forum to actually challenge ourselves and each other, articulate a bold vision for the future and develop a shared strategy for action. If we're ever to build a truly powerful, multi-issue movement for economic, political and social justice, we must overcome the following barriers that loomed large at the US Social Forum - which I attribute to dangerous patterns across the left more so than the particular organizers of the Forum, many of whom raised the same concerns.
1. We must be allies, not enemies!
At the US Social Forum, one group of immigrant-led organizations nastily attacked another because of disagreements over pursuing immigration reform strategy. A Jewish woman who tried to make a statement sympathetic with Palestinians was publicly attacked as anti-Arab and anti-Islam. One peace activist was attacked with a pie was thrown in her face by others calling her a sell-out.
As someone once said, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" Is that really where to best concentrate our energy, on attacking those who are slightly to the left or right of us on any given issue but generally otherwise in agreement? Don't we have more important things to do?
At one point, I left the Social Forum to visit the museum dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King, who was heartily evoked throughout the forum, preached non-violence and compassion for our opponents. He also was attacked by many on the far-left as a sell-out in his day, for working with the federal government to pass imperfect yet necessary civil rights legislation. Are the immigrant rights groups who pushed for reform legislation any different? Would King have had a pie thrown in his face at the US Social Forum today?
History has taught us that successful social movements have involved a spectrum of ideologies. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers made King and others' demands seem "reasonable" and thus politically acceptable to center-right elites. Social movements that rely on totalitarian dogmatism fail. See, e.g., communism everywhere. Before the US Social Forum, I thought the American left had learned this lesson and believed in compassion and respect for differences. Now I'm not so sure. The US Social Forum was a hot bed of ugly and disrespectful sectarian attacks lobbed by the self-righteous far-left against the merely left-of-center-left. Is it possible that we could appreciate the need for diversity and difference of opinion within the left and cultivate a new habit of respectful yet robust debate - rather than pie throwing?
2. Identity does not equal politics
Political correctness and identity politics have been much maligned on the left and right. At their best, these notions challenge us to remedy past habits of exclusion and elitism, include the full spectrum of human diversity in our movement building and society in general, and give voice to multiple perspectives and not just those that generally dominate. But identity politics fails us when we treat racial, ethnic and sexual diversity as a proxy for political and ideological diversity. They're not necessarily interchangeable.
On each plenary at the US Social Forum, for instance, there were as many as eight speakers who were extremely diverse in terms of identity but barely so in terms of politics. Speakers who looked different from one another nonetheless repeated the same rhetoric over and over again. Much of it was identity-based shout-outs, how we have to connect this issue or that with the GLBT community or we can't ignore the plight of women in one situation or another. That's all important --- the whole point to identity politics is to include in the political conversation and process those who have been horribly excluded for so long. But we can't stop at the politics of recognition. If we don't go any deeper --- to not just talk about why we have to connect our issues but have the challenging conversations about how we make these connections in practice, to not just care about who is on stage but also what they have to say --- otherwise, aren't we the self-imposed victims of the tokenism we say we reject?
And if at a gathering of 15,000 left-wing social justice activists who in their daily work and struggle are trying to bring voice and power to those most often left behind, our main internal priority is still the main fight to be fought internally, see point #1 above. Sure, some of the straight folks at the forum could use more analysis around issues of homophobia and gender identity. And sure, the non-Native folks there probably need to learn much more about Native history and struggles. But frankly just trotting out a diverse set of faces and giving rhetorical lip service to these issues isn't much progress in that direction. Rather than saying simply, "We have to respect and include Native communities," followed by a show of solidarity in the form of applause, what if we were really engaged and challenged to think about why Native communities and issues are often last on our laundry list of progressive causes, or what it means for American activists who so often despise the nation-state to nonetheless champion Native sovereignty? What if our solidarity came in the form of rigorous thinking, rather than ceremonial clapping?
The point of identity politics isn't to rank the issues or perspectives of one community as more important than another but, rather, to use the often intense experiences of inequality and discrimination faced by some communities as a lens for better understanding the injustice faced by all of us. In other words, diversity and inclusion are vital but we can't just stop there.
3. We need positive alternatives, not just critique
Along the same lines, we have to do more than just complain about the problems in society. Analysis and critique are very important. We need to understand structural racism, how it's perpetuated in society's political and cultural crevices and the polluting impact it has in our communities. We need to understand economic inequality, how the economy is designed to produce injustice, how that injustice is manifest. But cathartic though it might be, it's not enough to just complain and critique. If we believe another world is possible and are about building power in communities to achieve that alternative future, then we have to set about the task of actually describing what that future should be.
That's hard. We know what we're against, but we're not entirely sure what we're for. And to the point above, it's much easier to prove you belong in the progressive club by throwing down some fierce analysis of war and militarism and the connection to the prison industrial complex. But what's your alternative solution? Is war necessary and sometimes just? If we can't prevent all crimes, do we think prison is sometimes okay or what's our alternative? At the level of critique and analysis, we're damn good at exchanging rhetorical hi-fives. But what if you and I disagree at the level of vision? Or worse, what if I don't even have a vision at all? It's a much more vulnerable position to be in.
At a meeting I was at recently, a grassroots activist said, "We wouldn't know what to do with power if we got it. We haven't had that meeting yet!" Power, of course, isn't a end but a means to and end. What will the world look like when we, the people, have the power to change it? Critique and analysis are important but not enough. Part of building power is planning for power. And we must build our future vision along the way. From the worker-owned cooperative businesses to models of participatory democracy, examples are springing up across the country of an alternative vision in action. Our power comes not only from critiquing what is but envisioning what will be and inspiring millions with the vivid reality that another world is possible. At social justice gatherings going forward, we should do more than dwell on the many problems in society and talk about how we need alternatives. We should discuss what those alternatives actually are.
Comments or critiques of this article are welcome and invited. Please send them to skohn@communitychange.org . Pies? I prefer banana cream.
Sally Kohn is the director of the Movement Vision Lab at the Center for Community Change, supporting grassroots leaders across the United States to explore and debate visionary ideas for the future.
38 Comments so far
Show AllNo, not a redefinition of terms. But a re-scoping of meaning. We need to back out of bad framing whenever we see it. "Liberal" is a highly abstract term, because it forces the listener to conjure up his own baggage, good or bad, and assemble or attach some aggregate/sum/conglomerate meaning to the term. Since it's so complex/wide/abstract of a term, it requires some mental arithematic or account balancing. Does the good outweigh the bad? If so, then one might find an agreeable discussion partner or audience. If not, then you've distanced them prematurely.
So I'm suggesting backing out from such aggregate scoping/framing, and moving decisvely to far more widely praised semantics (freedom vs. tyranny).
(Sure, Orwell painted a universe in which war=peace, so even freedom=tyranny is a reality. But there's no ultimate way to escape the bounds of language except via generosity of actions, volunteering, the arts, philanthropy, etc. Doing so without saying a word to those who benefit from the effort.)
RE: "ABANDON LEFT/RIGHT"? DON'T THINK SO...
No, I do not believe a semantic reinscription of terms will connect the left with either the masses or Reagan Democrats.
IMO, it would just be different labels, same concepts, and the right would quickly peg them as such.
If there is a way forward, it's a q. of working directly with the people we want and need to prevail, in order to gain their understanding and trust in the old terms.
Not the workplace anymore...more like...e.g...a soccer team in a city park, where we spoke Spanish...with politics something that would have to be a meeting between our ideas and others' perceived interests...which we would arrive at and formulate as we entered into concrete relationships with them...over time.
What scares me is the natural tendency for many on the left to be, shall we say, Robespierre-ian. Yeah, vengence delights the dark side of all of us, but it always poisons the water. Always.
There are 300 million people in the United States. Half of them have their noses out of joint over something I don't care about. Even among themselves they are not united. They couldn't agree on how to make coffee.
I guess we're not talking about the same film, because in the version I saw the "old Arab man" was done in by a bunch of kids. Of course, I'm being ironic about the whole thing. The best way to keep the poverty-industrial complex from co-opting grassroots groups is to simply expose who their funders really are and what conditions are put on that money. In order to get beyond band-aid solutions and make real change we need to not be bound up with the system, either directly or indirectly. How many liberal "do-gooders" would be doing what they do if there wasn't a paycheck attached? Or a power trip?
chchicano July 18th, 2007 8:05 pm
"Yeah, we're talking about the same movie."
Yes, well, sorry I can't make it to the abandoned warehouse meeting - sure you'll have lots of fun with the other "liberals." Like the French paratroopers did with the old Arab man at the start of the movie.
Yeah, we're talking about the same movie.
RE: "HERDING CATS" SOLUTION
alamac July 18th, 2007 12:54 pm
"It's the "herding cats" problem–lefties are damned independent thinkers who each have fervently-held beliefs and the will to back them up."
Not to worry. The right will "herd" those independent atoms into an orderly line, if they have their way - and, then, those potent little atoms of radical independence can air their ideas, freely, en masse and en bloc, all the way to the ovens.
RE: PIE IN FACE "DIRECT ACTION" - FITTING, HUMOROUS RESPONSE TO A "POMPOUS" LEFTIST? OR 'FIRST WARNING'?
eshu July 18th, 2007 12:22 pm
"Medea and her supporters need to get a sense of humor...She got a pie in the face because she's well deserving of same. She is a pompous ass much of the time, and ridicule is an appropriate response to that...Be glad you're not in a tendency that just meets Benjamin's self-righteousness with a baseball bat. You know they're out there."
Oh, yes indeed, eshu - I am sure those righteous, baseball bat-toting revolutionary "tendencies" are out there.
And, for Medea's sake, I hope she lightens up, gets a sense of humor, and considers herself lucky - 'less she wants a ripped ear or bashed in mouth next time she opens her pompous yap.
RE: "PURG[ING]" LIBERALS - aka KILL THEM?
chchicano July 18th, 2007 4:33 pm
"What the oppressed in this country need to do to truly overthrow those structures that oppress us is to begin with a purge (a la the one at the beginning of the film "The Battle of Algers," that will get rid of the liberal opportunists that are making a living off of the struggle."
Could you be more specific about exactly how you are calling on the "oppressed" to "get rid of" or "purge" liberals, please?
Because it sounds as though, by "purge," you mean that the "oppressed" - or perhaps the "revolutionary tendencies" among the oppressed - should bomb and shoot these "liberal opportunists" (a la the Algerians in Battle of Algiers)
Is that what you are advocating?
Nice post, Eshu :-) I don't know about a pie in the face of Medea Benjamin (not because I'm against pie throwing per se, but just because I can't comment with any knowledge on THAT PARTICULAR incident), but the rest is refreshing, without doubt.
It is a problem on the Left that we are easily divided and there are areas where this is certainly a liability, but it is also what makes the Left appealing. The RIGHT (White?) wing often succeeds because they are able to put aside their minor differences and move forward with a united front, but they also are a small minority with one unifying goal: Greed. Yes, the Left could pick a single issue, declare unity and have more success, but what is the point of success if it is just a different sort of limitation on the power of democracy?
As to seeking a solution rather than constantly critiquing, there is an obvious solution, if we are looking for the big label sort: democracy. Seriously. Direct democracy. I have been reading Al Gore's "Assault on Reason" and it is proving to be a fascinating book. Partly, of course, Gore is a smart person some very interesting, and instructive, insights on our current political situation, but MORE because it is a peek into the mind of US democracy. Gore is quite explicit in stating that our Founders chose to forego DIRECT DEMOCRACY because they were afraid of the passions of the people. Though he does not state it as such, his hemming and hawing around the subject defines clearly that he believes we must have a ruling aristocracy to act as a stay on these passions. Of course, this is precisely what has gotten us into the situation we are in, now. We all inherently fear democracy because it is casting our trust onto the entire nation (the Wal-Mart shoppers, the supporters of war in Iraq, the racists in Jena, Lousiana, those who think the earth and all it contains are here strictly for human service and consumption...). We must trust out neighbors to do the right thing. All of us like to pretend that we can have a body to overrule when the passions of the public go against our interests, but it is simply not possible. I harbor romantic notions, for example, that the Supreme Court is our conscience of last resort, but clearly entrusting our laws to a such a final arbiter is dangerous. Would we not be better served by a passionate people throwing out the Court Jesters? The fundamental flaw in the illusory democracy that has, heretofore, existed in the United States is that we can trust people with money more than we can trust people without it. It is a very Protestant notion that God grants money to those He loves best, and therefore they are best fit to provide intelligent guidance to the rest of us. Unfortunately, these aristocrats also operate under the assumption that they become more Holy in the "democratic" realm not by the acquisition of reason, or spiritual/empathetic insight, but the amassing of MORE wealth, thus proving themselves MORE deserving and wise in the eyes of this interestingly capitalistic God.
If you want a solution, look no further than the promises we received in our propaganda ridden eduction. Democracy is the solution and the only way to achieve it is through spreading the consciousness that it does not exist. We all feel entitled to rule. We have been told, from earliest memory, that it is our BIRTHRIGHT to rule. But it is a deception that began when the Constitutional Convention stripped us of that right in the name of a more efficient, paternal government. Acknowledge and spread the truth, because the entitlement is already there. Pointing out the ways in which we DO NOT rule as a people will create the anger required to ensure that we DO rule as a people.
Lastly, a small bone to pick. Can we PLEASE stop saying that communism is a tried and discredited system? Those who think that the USSR was a communist regime have simply never studied it! Those who think there has been a truly communist regime have no idea what the word MEANS. It is repeated, over and over, by "intellectuals" of all stripes that communism has proven itself incapable of government, but it is simply not true. It is Cold War propaganda and definitions. Seriously, there is nothing I hate more than when we let PR hacks impact the debate by manipulating language and facts. I am not a Marxist (though I am a HUGE fan of Marx's critique of capitalism), but Marxism is not the end-all of Communism (nor has Marxism ever actually ruled, anywhere). This Western perspective with Marx as the only thinker on communism is offensive. One might consider reading some of the South American thinkers on this subject (Mariategui is a personal favorite). Whatever form we want government to take, it is important that we discuss it openly and honestly. It is important to realize that Marxism IS democracy (but, from my perspective, Marx was too big a fan of industrialism and had no concept of environmental issues). If you have real, direct, democracy, the solutions will follow, and continue to follow, revised every step of the way. Jefferson imagined that we would constantly evolve and experiment with our system of government, making mistakes (he saw the Constitution as the first major mistake) and repairing them along the way.
One other thing about the US Social Forum that came to my mind when reading many of the comments above: sectarian contingents--demanding that everyone either support the Democratic party, or leave it for the Greens, or join a Marxist sect, or abstain from electoral politics altogher--were blessedly too small to make an impact on the event.
Notwithstanding Kohn's claims about 'totalitarian dogmatism', the event was a great mix of social movements, most of which advocated what I would describe as 'militant pragmatism' (i.e. focused on the issues of the day, but aware of the perils of loosing one's autonomy and the long term goal of building people's power). I hope even more people make it in 2010!
Decent article, but I wish we could get to a post-left/right analysis. It's metaphorical, deliberately confusing and framed, carries an awful lot of historical baggage, evokes entrenched and pre-programmed criticisms, etc.
Let's talk about the politics of up vs. down. Oppression vs. self-dermination, Tyranny vs. freedom. Even Joe Sixpacks isn't going to recite a pre-programmed mantra about the evils of freedom or autonomy from oppression and corruption.
In this sense, the "Left" has been the victim of the "Right's" framing the spectrum into confusing and baggage-prone slots. Again, to reiterate, let's talk qualities not labels -- with unequally assumed qualities -- that not everyone is "hip" to. "Left" is a great way to instantly self-marginalize oneself, preach to the choir, and send middle Americans (the people who progressives must court) walking the other way.
RE: OPIUM AND PROGRESSIVES
"Is it your creation?"
Not quite, sorry to say...believe I once read something like 'Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.'
But it does fit - including what follows in Marx's version - in place of 'It is the cry of the heart in a heartless world,' substitute something like, 'It is the cry for action in a frozen world.'
Baska, you wrote:
"Ideological purity is the opium of the progressives."
Truer words were never spoken. I could use this saying three times a day. Is it your creation?
Right conservatives like Hitler and Bush, and left conservatives like Stalin and Pol Pot are more alike than not. It's not a right versus left issue. It's a liberal vs. conservative issue. Concentrated wealth and power is conservative. Shared wealth and power is liberal.
I had high hopes for this Social Forum, but I guess Americans aren't ready yet. Not until Americans get more than two parties in their political system will they be able to count past the number 2 -- one right/one wrong, one good/one evil.
The author has nailed it very well. She should submit this article to Rockridge Institute at www.rockridgeinstitute.org.
DUMP THE DEMOCRATS!
UNITE INTO A NEW THIRD PARTY NOW!
We the people, opposed to the destruction of the planet and it's peoples, now atomized and powerless in "grass roots" and "special interest" groups, must unite our efforts and resources into a new party to replace the corrupt Democratic Party! A new party that rejects corporate funding in order to end the corporate plunder of the federal government.
A new party explicitly opposed to the Project for the New American Century. Opposed to unending war for profit and power. Cut the military budget by 50%, shut down the 700 military bases around the world. Re-instate taxes cut by Bush gang.
A new party that commits the entire resources of the country to end global warming, end imperialist wars, implements true non-profit universal health care. promotes mass transportation, develops renewaable energy, and produces the essentials for human survival.
A new party that promotes an economy that works towards fulfilling the economic needs of all the people, not just to profit a tiny minority of super wealthy. No more people living on the streets! No more hospitalized people being dumped into the streets when they have no money or health insurance! (See the film SICKO)
A new party to unite all of the oppressed people of this country. A new party that cuts across all the false social and cultural divisions that keep us forever powerless (racial, ethnic, age, language, etc.). A new party to unite us against the unending destruction of peoples and planet.
A SOCIALIST HUMANIST PARTY to promote the end of gangster capitalism, run-amok capitalism, which is supported by both Democratic and Republican parties.
A new party to support the labor movement and all working people. We urge the labor movement to stop supporting the Democratic Party (already besotted by corporate money), and to focus its precious resources to fund a new national radio and television network. By being on the air 24 hours a day the labor movement can provide the latest news, information, education and current affairs analysis desperately needed by all working people. This effort, combined with the formation of the new party, will be a bold step towards reviving the organized labor movement.
For years we have listened to radio programs like DEMOCRACY NOW! that has discussed with numerous "grass roots" groups desperately struggling to make a positive change in society. Anti-war protest groups, civil rights groups, union struggles, affordable housing groups, teachers unions, health care access, seniors about Social Security, have involved millions of people. Now is the time to unite the energy and resources of the people into a new party.
The new party provides a means of uniting the "special interest" agendas of each group into the platform of the new party. The new party candidates, selected from the various individuals and groups, would become the candidates representing their cause and the new party. The new party will contest for office at every level of government in order to take power. The new party will provide the new leadership and new programs this country desperately needs.
There is still time before November 2008 elections to start this process. Even the announcement and preparation for a founding convention of such a new party will shock both Democrats and Republican incumbents. They will know that their days are numbered!
The needs of all previous "minority" and "special interests" people now become the platform of the new party representing the vast majority of people. Can the existing activists of so-called "minority" and "special interest" groups overcome their existing powerlessness, and link up with each other to start this new party?
This all-inclusive struggle will attract millions of atomized working people, often non-voters and uninvolved people, who have been atomized, exploited, brain-washed by corporate media and ultimately destroyed by gangster capitalism.
Ms. Kohn has it completely backwards. This is no surprise to me, seeing that she works for the Center for Community Change, an organization that was created to co-opt radical organizations. It was created, as a response to revolutionary tendencies in community organizations, by huge foundations and under the leadership of Pablo Isenberg, formerly of the CIA-front U.S. Information Agency. Groups like the Center for Community Change and the National Council of La Raza are poverty pimps who get grassroots groups hooked on foundation money (which they, of course, get a cut of for their services) so they won't be able to really challenge the system.
What Ms.Kohn doesn't get is that it is exactly in the divisions between liberal and radicals groups that the real issues exist. On the issue of immigration, for instance, it is not a question of one "reform" package or another--the reality is, much of what the Democrats are calling "reform" actually makes the plight of undocumented immigrants worse.
Her call to put aside differences and lower the profile of identity politics is what white liberals have been saying for the past forty years. It is code for: we don't want to work for you (minorities, the poor, workers),
we want to LEAD you to the Promised Land. What the oppressed in this country need to do to truly overthrow those structures that oppress us is to begin with a purge (a la the one at the beginning of the film "The Battle of Algers,") that will get rid of the liberal opportunists that are making a living off of the struggle.
For those interested in the content of a 'Jewish woman (Yifat Susskind of MADRE) who tried to make a statement sympathetic with Palestinians', after describing how the conflict between Hamas and Fatah is rooted in US/European/Israeli intervention and disrepect for democratic elections, she went on to say that Hamas does not share her (or the forum's) values, that their rise complicates any narrative of virtuous Palestinians and evil Israelis, and that we must seek those among the Palestinians who share our values. It was a pretty shocking statement coming from a plenary speaker (not so shocking coming from an Israeli liberal, since they have been saying the same thing for thirty years or so now, Hamas now replacing Arafat as the unacceptable Palestinian), considering that, as Kohn describes elsewhere, virtually every other struggle referenced was celebrated. Far from revealing a rote far-leftism on the part of the social forum, it was indicative of the weakness of the war plenary--apparently because the organizers didn't really do their homework, liberals like UFPJ and MADRE got plenty of space, while there was silence about surveillance and harassment of American muslims and their allies. The next night, to their credit, the national planning committee gave some space to a Palestinian speaker.
I thought the social forum was, overall, the context for a great deal of respectful and fruitful mingling (also, let it be said, the national planning committee denounced the pie-in-the-face of Medea Benjamin). Although the tensions referenced in the article above are real, they were probably handled better than at the World Social Forum (usually dominated by well-heeled NGOs) or the European Social Forum (lately subverted by the Socialist Worker's Party of Britain). Protests at both have been considerably angrier than anything in Atlanta.
I agree that there was a problem with mechanical 'diversity' at the forum, but the discussion was at a much higher plane than you would think from Kohn's article. Most members of diverse communities were identifying ways in which processes of privatization and militarization were impacting them, not just giving shout outs.
I certainly agree that the forum should've given more attention to solutions, and at times hobbled itself in terms of giving a broad, class based analysis of the situation in the US (I suppose I am coming from somewhere to the left of Kohn, but we can agree on some things).
For an alternative take on the forum , please see:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/sherman040707.html
RE: INTERNICINE WARFARE - CAUSE OF LEFT WING WEAKNESS, OR EFFECT?
newageartist July 18th, 2007 3:06 pm
"it's the nature of the beast. Everyone has their own agenda. And everyone thinks their agenda is the only good one for everyone else. We're like kids on a playground."
Internal fighting may be a cause of left wing weakness in the US, but is also an effect of a marginalized left in a right wing country - a symptom of the left's weakness.
Alienated from the major parties, with no European-type mass political or labor movements to work with, progressives have limited tangible hopes. And so they think and talk...and militantly squabble.
Ideological purity is the opium of the progressives.
Identity politics and inclusion are contradictory. Identity politics is of necessity not inclusive. The left succeeded a century ago and again 75 years ago without identity politics. It will not succeed again until it cuts that anchor loose. Of course many great changes are in store for Americans and the American left in the next few years. Many of the current concerns and obsessions will soon seem laughable.
excellent points made here so far. If I may, I'll add my experience to dponcy's.
Even loccally in the anti-war movement, we had trouble "coming together" for a march and rally because of the friction caused by BOTH 'extremes' on the Left. The anarchists and even some street kids who got involved, had their agenda which they wanted addressed while the progressive Democrats, Greens and church groups wanted a more solemn, reserved affair. Bickering led to demands which led to out and out name calling and finally walk outs from our meetings. By the time it was over, fewer instead of more joined the group with less than great attendance. And we blame the right wing for our problems???
Will we ever learn? No.
Like stated before, it's the nature of the beast. Everyone has their own agenda. And everyone thinks their agenda is the only good one for everyone else. We're like kids on a playground.
It occured to me that I might be using the wrong scale within the context of the event, but it still holds true across the board. Sometimes I see this niche stuff at ANSWER rallies and it can be alienating, and groups like the Greens have become gated communities unto themselves--totally irrelevant. Some on the Left become so doctrinaire they don't even deal with in the moment situations. So, what good are they? The Left has to push to get their voices and ideas out there--what good is it to withdraw into isolated ivory towers? Don't know the answer but will continue to push.
Vern, I don't know where you come from politically, but I think you have a misunderstanding of what people are talking about when they refer to the "far-left".
The far left I know are the one's who "drag down Nader, joke about Kucinich, dismiss Michael Moore, attack Cindy Sheehan and demand that we line up behind" ...The Revolution. That is, their particular sectarian vision of The Revolution. Some of these folks are Trotskyists, some anarchists, some environmentalists, some other ists, but they are all absolutist and unbending about their issue, or their "analysis". To them, Kucinich, et al, are all sell-outs.
As an organizer on the ("sellout" democratic socialist) left for over two decades, I can assure you that this divisiveness is rampant. Every group I have been involved with for more than a year or so has made itself irrelevent through this sectarian bickering.
This sectarianism, of course, is not limited to the "far left". It exists everywhere on the broader left, including the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, the Greens, etc.
Time for unity or death. We get to choose.
Regarding point 3, for a positive alternative to capitalism/corporatism, check out parecon (participatory economics), a vision largely shaped by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. It contains ideas from socialism, but diverges from classical Marxism in several ways, for example, it replaces the Marxist two class model of proletarians and capitalists with one including a "coordinator" class--people who, without owning businesses (as capitalists do), are still a priveleged elite in that they have power over other workers as managers, lawyers, doctors, etc. Parecon is discussed and debated at http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm.
Socialism, as in the Northern European countries or as emerging in South America sounds like the best solution to me. Communism and Capitalism are both proven failures, countries who opted for Socialism seem to have a lot more happy people living there. I do not really care if the rich are not rich enough, it's the status of the poor that define a country. Ours? Well, just look around and see what you think.
"The US Social Forum was a hot bed of ugly and disrespectful sectarian attacks lobbed by the self-righteous far-left against the merely left-of-center-left. Is it possible that we could appreciate the need for diversity and difference of opinion within the left and cultivate a new habit of respectful yet robust debate - rather than pie throwing?"
Garbage. Go to any of the "progressive" forums on the net and you will see the "far-left" constantly hounded, sneered at, condemned, red-baited, censored and thrown off by "the merely left-of-center-left" (note how the author frames the far-left as self-righteous and the centrists as "merely")Cindy Sheehan is a case in point. There is more venom directed at her by mindless centrists than targeting the Bush administration. It is amazing how people are so easily hoodwinked and absorb the talking points targeting the Left. Of course, that is what both parties fear the most--a populist uprising championing social and economic justice and end to imperial looting that drain or treasury for the enrichment of the few. FDR actually preserved capitalism by adopting some socialism, thereby providing checks and balances, but there is increasing unfairness and a rolling back of protections and accountability--and little room in the Democratic party anymore for true advocates to weld any influence. It is all bought and sold. So, I take some offense that the author says we should play nice with the centrists--they don't play nice with us--I have seen "Commondreams" referred to as the Left's equiviliant of Fox News", when they are closer in philosophy to Fox news.
The Left needs and should have the right to stridently say no to a "Left" who aligns itself more often than not with the Right. We are not allies when they are the ones who drag down Nader, joke about Kucinich, dismiss Michael Moore, attack Cindy Sheehan and demand that we line up behind Hillary Clinton.
Yeah. It's the "herding cats" problem--lefties are damned independent thinkers who each have fervently-held beliefs and the will to back them up.
So we are cursed by our big advantage--we are thinkers who live by the mantra "Don't follow leaders & watch your parking meters". Sheep follow blindly and as a pack. Cats, on the other hand, do what they think is right, the rest of the world be damned.
I have thought long and hard about this and don't see a solution. Ironically, it may take a Neil Young-style "Leader" to create the buzz and will to overcome our parochialism and work together (for once) to accomplish real change.
Note to Neil, though: It isn't Obama, and not because he's "too young", but because he's too korporatist. And it isn't a "woman" because the only one in the race is the hyper-korporatist Klintstone.
So back to the drawing board. Signed-- >^..^<
Articles like this of lesser quality have from time to time given me concern about whose minding the store at Common Dreams. Democrats can surely take criticism . . .
But the old Republican rag of a story that attacking hate speech is merely attacking politically correct expression simply paves the way for the fascist Supreme Court to now tell us that "Integration is Discrimination."
To start is to stop thinking in terms of right and left as this is exactly what the ruling powers want everybody to think. There is great but unpublished work of Paul Ray that put the political map in much better perspective and this is not based on just theoretical speculation.
http://www.culturalcreatives.org/Library/docs/NewPoliticalCompassV73.pdf
We also need to understand what unites all the movements. Clearly, it is rebellion against the ruling Moderns culture and its principles which are embodied by all the ruling powers. Yet, that rebellion always starts in one particular area of life. This is represented by particular social movements as against the war, saving the earth, civil rights, etc. Individually, rebellion seems to be spreading to other parts of our individual lives, gradually but accelerating. That is why those who oppose third world exploitation can also be involved, for instance, in organics or alternative medicine. And vice versa.
Sally is right that the problem, the ultimate problem is that we know what we fight against but we don't know what we want to replace it with. Apparently, "it is all about economy, stupid". And it is, because we all want to live and most of us want to live well. Here is the really bad news. Is there a realistic economic model that can address goals of all these various individual "against" movements? If we want to save the earth, how can we support lives of 6.5 billions people? Something must die.
Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans fight who will be the next version of the rulling Moderns powers...
As for the first commenter here, the "democrats" aren't even in it, and haven't been for a long time. The democrats are full of beans, they were twenty years ago when I was still working with them, and they exist to confuse and mislead. Screw that noise.
Respect for your perspective compels me to be honest with you, however painful we both may find it. Anything else is just passive aggressive bullshit.
Finally, both the columnist, and her respondee, need to understand Medea Benjamin doesn't even reach up to MLK's shoelaces. No one's talking political purity here. We're talking integrity. And she hasn't found it yet, despite her posing.
What you identify as the "far left" attacking merely the "left of center" is in reality a mismash of perspectives.
Your critique of the attacks on the pro-Palestinian statement dont' make sense if we do not know what was said. A lot of people on the "left" who imagine themselves pro-Palestinian quite naively continue to endorse a "peace" process which is overseen by the west and Israel. To critique such a position is not to be "pure" in one's politics, it is simply to recognize concrete conditions on the ground and call for clarity. The Palestinians have a full and unconditional right to autonomy, whether Israel or the United States recognize it or not, and hence, any resistance they mount, despite the contradictions of such a resistance, must be given supportive criticism, not merely critical support. The difference between the two positions is complex and immense, as at the end of the day, no one in the west has anything to say about Palestine short of full support for liberation that anyone in the Middle East should have to listen to anyway. As for the rights of the Jewish population to a homeland, that too should be respected, but it must come with full recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people to return. That comes first. There has never been any rhyme or reason behind the concept that Palestine should pay for what the European did to European Jewery sixty years ago, and those who do not understand that little piece don't understand much about the debacle in the Middle East right now. So, unless you'd care to outline what the actual dispute was in the situation you alluded to, your lack of detail hazes the issue, and incidentally, due to its lack of clarity, comes off as an attack and adds to the sectarian behavior you are so allegedly concerned about.
As for the pie incident, Medea and her supporters need to get a sense of humor. To suggest she has never been guilty of grandstanding, or that her schtick in front of the camera isn't exhausting at moments, is ridiculous. She got a pie in the face because she's well deserving of same. She is a pompous ass much of the time, and ridicule is an appropriate response to that. In fact, it's the American way, if you want to get culture specific. Be glad you're not in a tendency that just meets Benjamin's self-righteousness with a baseball bat. You know they're out there.
Speaking of the American way, the splitting and arguing you're looking at is a natural part of a political culture steeped in spectacular reference and political leadership that spends much of its time posing for the cameras. That's not going to be outgrown in a short time simply by calling for unity. There are serious political disputes that must get worked out, concrete questions that must get addressed, platforms to be constructed. That won't come without splits. If you actually believe that you're going to build a majoritarian movement that's going to overturn this mess simply by calling for unity, you are quite mistaken, and need to look at real U.S. history. It will be a minority faction, united around a real concrete program, that will carry this thing forward. It will attain majority support only through long, hard, experience and error, and constantly correcting itself through concrete tactics, as opposed to Medea- type media events.
And if you spent any time studying or analyzing the history of communism, which you denigrate as a totalitarian movement, but which, up to this point in history, has been the only successful mass movement in opposition to imperialism and the corporate state, you'd understand that. Communism must be understood as an outgrowth of the capitalist war on the world, otherwise, you'll never understand it. If you oppose stalinism, you have a responsibility to get clear on the actual consequences of capitalist mayhem. New Orleans is the truest indicator of who these bastards are. Get busy studying.
You've got a lot of damn homework to do just like the rest of us, so you need not get all righteous in your calls for unity. Unity brokers are every bit as capable of being sectarian and vicious as any "ultra left" group. As a veteran of the labor movement, and having been on the receiving end of "mainstream" union thuggery and it's unity broking friends, I can assure you that political purity is a disease not unknown to the center. No one was more of a centrist then Joseph Stalin. So cool your jets. There's a long, hard road ahead. You're not anywhere near as open or prepared as you present yourself being.
---M. Hureaux, Seattle
Huzzah, my lady! Your three points are well taken. I worry, though, about the Left's ability to take heed. Twenty years ago, I worked as a volunteer at the California State Democratic Party convention, and I saw much of the same thing: Many great ideas and many good intentions hamstrung by petty bickering. Mostly over who deserved the title of "Most Abused Victims of All Time".
"Political Correctness" is a much-abused term that, at its heart, really means simply "fashionable politeness". I have not EVER been a fan of fashion, but I remain a staunch defender of politeness in human affairs. It's this simple, folks: How good or bad the world turns out actually really does come down to a question of how much respect (yes, I'll use the 'flabby' word) niceness are YOU, as an individual, going to show THAT PERSON in front of you now, regardless of how different OR alike you both are.
There is no left or right -- only tyranny (whether political, physical, economic, cultural, religious, etc.) and self-determination.
Honestly folks, let's get beyond labels and aim at qualities.
It's clear that the labels have divided us, kept middle-Americans OUT of progressive causes, painted even noble and sensible ideas into "extreme" corners (when they should be front and center), and arguably caused the Reagan Democrats -- to this day -- to vote against their own class interests.
It's a linguistic charade. Let's abandon left/right, even liberal/conservative, and aim for the heart of the matter.
At 30-plus comments and counting, I have to wonder how much human energy (mine included) has gone into these posts. What have we/are we accomplishing here? Grassroots activism should involve shoe leather on pavement/concrete, knuckles on doors, butts plunked down on chairs (or wheelchairs) positioned around kitchen tables, shouldn't it? Accuse me of possessing an Amish mind-set if you wish, but isn't technology supposed to be our liberator, not our hypnotist? Aren't we simply letting valuable steam pressure escape on forums such as these? Is energy expended on possibly fruitless debates really energy?
The most insightful (because of its clarity and brevity) comment I've read here thus far is the following: "Concentrated wealth and power is conservative. Shared wealth and power is liberal." Now, that seems to be a rallying point.