Thursday, February 28, 2019

The Debate Over Tactics In the Modern Left: Radical Opposition or Strategic Inclusive Engagement?

>

World CO2 emissions are growing, not falling. What will the children say? (source)

by Thomas Neuburger

Modern America is a tense place these days. By that I mean, there are a number of tensions in American social and political life that are, this year, coming to a frothy head.

First, consider the tension in center and leftish circles around class war and the 2020 election. Many argue that the right way for to Democrats to win this election is by embracing "identity politics" — that racial justice, justice for women, for gay, lesbian and trans individuals, for indigenous peoples and all other victimized groups must come first, must be placed front and center. And not just for presentation and marketing purposes (though many do argue that vote-getting starts with making the identity case), but because fighting the old white patriarchy is a necessary precursor to fighting the class war — that if the old white patriarchy is in place, the class war can't be won.

Adolph Reed Jr. has written much about this tension on the left (his latest is here), and proponents of the Sanders candidacy stand almost alone in believing the solution lies in winning the class struggle.

So that's one tension. Another is the tension around radical, oppositional action versus a more considered, careful, inclusive approach. Visitors to DWT recently read about Rep. Pramila Jayapal and her "balancing act" — her attempt to keep real progressives, not-so-real progressives and Party leaders all aligned with genuinely progressive legislation like Medicare for All. Time will determine if that strategy succeeds; everyone I know hope it does.

Radical opposition, however, has its proponents, and no subject inspires them more than the coming climate catastrophe, which the world is doing less than nothing to head off (see graph at top).

Will the politics of accommodation work in this sphere, or will radical action be required? Must the current system be broken and rebuilt before a climate solution can be enacted?

As writer David Atkins explains it in the following twitter thread, the choices left to us are really one choice. First, the Right will not let — is not letting — the current system survive in any case; they're breaking norms with everything they touch. Second, the current system cannot provide a climate solution. Thus breaking that system the way the Left wants to break it provides the only hope "for those of us who want to live to 2050."

Radical thoughts for a radical time. Here's that thread. See what you think after you read it.
Short thread here on climate change, the norms of democracy, and the battle between the right, center left and progressive left. Ready? Here goes... /1

The Right has always depended for its success on the implicit or explicit threat that it would be willing to subvert all the norms of democracy to achieve its goals, whether it be "2nd amendment remedies" or the Federalist Society's changing all the rules in the courts.../2

This is how the Right works the refs: they let everyone know that they're willing to pull out ALL the stops if white male patriarchy and racism don't stay centered in society, and if rich people don't get to keep all the loot. /3

The center left has long depended on being the "responsible" party. The cogent ones, the level headed ones. The perpetual Real Mothers in the Justice of Solomon [story] willing to sacrifice almost anything to salvage the system. /4

The problem is that this dynamic between right and center left is codependent and convenient to the status quo. The far right gets to keep the angry old racists happy, the center left keeps the concerned vaguely cosmopolitan educated crowd happy. And the donors always win. /5

The progressive left [is] saying "enough of this game. We, too, are willing to break the norms of American democracy because these issues are life and death emergencies." We're not going to play the responsible straight man to the GOP's destructive clown. /6

Yes, we KNOW the Green New Deal can't pass through the Senate under the current system. We're not stupid. We're [putting] down the marker that if this system won't let the GND pass, we will change the system until it does--eliminate the filibuster, add states, pack courts, etc. /7

So when the center left says "but I can pass this weaker version", the answer is twofold:
1) no, you can't. The GOP is a destructive clown that won't give you the time of day, either. But also,
2) we don't care what you think [you] can pass. We're telling you what we need. /8

And if that means changing the system? So be it. If it means breaking the system? So be it. The norms of 20th century American democracy are worthless compared to the threat of climate change. Also, radical inequality. Also, the declining middle class. /9

The right has been very effective playing this game. They are signaling loud and clear they would rather have a Putin-backed dictatorship under a corrupt idiot than give up old white male privilege or [plutocratic] control. What is the left willing to do? How far will we go? /10

The center left's answer? Nowhere. We'll do whatever we can with the system we have, and whatever happens happens...as long as nobody's stock portfolio takes a hit. That is completely, totally unacceptable to those of us who want to live to 2050. Or have [kids] who do. /11

If the system won't budge with us, we'll budge the system. We are dealing with catastrophic threats, and econ/tech challenges well beyond the capacity of our current politics. Your experience within the system means nothing now. Your commitment to the goal is everything. /12

In short, the current system WILL NOT SURVIVE. The right sees an existential threat from a browning, more progressive population. They cannot afford for democracy to survive, and they will kill it if given half the chance. /13

But the current system also won't let us deal with our environmental, technological and economic challenges in anything like the timeframe we need to solve them. Which means the defenders of that system are just as dangerous in their own way as the right wing is. /14

The future belongs to the side that changes the system to accomplish their goals. Will it be young progressives? Or will it rich old racists? There is no middle ground. There is no responsible defense of the status quo. It's going to be one side or the other. /fin
His conclusion is striking, but not surprising. We've heard it from others as well. As Atkins says:

• The defenders of the present system are as dangerous in their way as the right wing is.
• The future belongs to the side that changes the system to accomplish their goals. 

The terms of this debate apply to a number of policy fields, and we'll be hearing some form of this discussion, of this tension, throughout the 2020 campaign. For example, the Medicare For All debate has already been characterized (accurately in my view) as a battle to replace capitalism (see Ed Walker's "The Green New Deal Challenges the Domination of Capital").

But the argument above applies no more directly than it does in the climate debate, where the clock is running, the end (if it comes) is near and total, and there's no turning back to anything that went before, no matter how much we wish it were not so.
 

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Comments:

At 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TY TN/GP. Best goddamn article on DWT, probably ever!

Atkins -- "the current system also won't let us deal with our environmental, technological and economic challenges ... Which means the defenders of that system are just as dangerous in their own way as the right wing is."

been saying that for nearly 4 decades. This is absolute truth. the democraps will only delay the final conflagration for a couple of years... maybe. They're propping up a sure-to-fail system that will kill everyone.

"The future belongs to the side that changes the system to accomplish their goals. Will it be young progressives? Or will it rich old racists? There is no middle ground. There is no responsible defense of the status quo."

The last sentence is pure, absolute truth. The status quo will kill your grandchildren no matter which of the current parties have majorities. The Nazis will enjoy killing them. The democraps will enjoy the money they accept in bribes as they are killed.

ok. got the truth of the sitchie out there. Now... as I seem to be the only one willing to go "there", I guess it's up to me to do it again...

We need a different and truly left movement. Either we do this or our kids and grandkids die. simple as that.

once again: "There is no responsible defense of the status quo."

remember this next time, and EVERY time DWT exhorts you to "hold your nose and vote for the stink".

 
At 11:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The future belongs to the side that changes the system.."

There are multiple aspects of this. A couple of the biggies are mentioned tangentially here.

1) the American mirage of a binary political system which, in effect, is a unary system based on money and corruption. Sure, one side openly espouses hate as their unifying issue. But the cornerstone of both sides of the binary mirage is corruption. Pelosi doesn't serve people. she serves donors. if she served people, cheney would have been impeached (for one).

the multigenerational betrayal of the voters on the American left *BY* the voters on the American left is the biggest failure of democracy as a philosophy in the history of humankind. It proves that putting human beings in charge of their own governance cannot work when those human beings are unable to spike an eeg or have hate of other human beings as their sole issue. Evidently Germany wasn't enough, so America had to become as bad to prove it all over again.

2) capitalism. The whole thing should set off alarms since it is based upon human greed as a driving force for "good". But even the THEORY is nonsensical at its base. Capitalism demands constant growth to support ever-increasing production and profits.

not that americans are capable of this kind of reasoning, but what happens when constant growth is required in a bounded domain? Oh. sorry. what I'm saying is how the fuck can growth remain constant on an earth that has limits? I mean, what happens when the population, demand, production, supply and profit reach the absolute limit of what earth can stand?

mfa does not, necessarily, imply an end to capitalism. it only implies that the health of americans should not be subject to profit motive... after all, max profits mean CARE is, necessarily, denied.

However, GND should imply an end to capitalism as our founding socioeconomic and political religion. For GND to be affected, humankind must utterly reject the urge for profits. They must embrace the urge to do the right thing for the masses, the commons and base decisions not on greed/profit but on what will work.

But, and again nobody ever goes THERE, but what will replace the fundamentally ludicrous capitalism? You cannot take away the religion of several billion delusion-dependent humans without giving them something to replace it. And it cannot be science/reason... humans cannot seem to function without some kind of cosmic muffin to believe in.

Sadly, it would be folly to try to re-educate 7 billion human flora. 6.999 billion of them just cannot be taught, as the 320 million americans have proved for 50 years.

But even more sadly, for climate change, it's already too late.

 
At 12:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A "a more considered, careful, inclusive approach" is the only thing the democraps have done as a party since Watergate. Just what has that accomplished besides entrenching the Republicans into power?

 
At 8:37 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

MDA (My Dear Anonymous) MFA, GND: please define!

 
At 8:50 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

MDA,

OK, GND = Green New Deal, got it.

But MDA: I'm torn between Master Facility Agreement (Ghana) and Manitoba Fencing Association; another top contender might be Missouri Futsal Association.

 
At 8:52 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

RE: "I'm torn between Master Facility Agreement (Ghana) and Manitoba Fencing Association; another top contender might be Missouri Futsal Association."



I meant to say mfa.

 
At 8:59 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

MDA,

BTW, I am almost certainly in complete agreement with your comments. Once you tell me what mfa stands for, we might be 100% in agreement.

 
At 9:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Medicare
For
All

 
At 6:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

by "tactics" on the left, you're talking about the PARTY? in which case, you can forget everything except lies and utter betrayals.

The voters on the left are far too stupid to ever think or act tactically, much less strategically. That we keep electing people so pelosi can act tyrannically and prevent any and all progressivism is proof... for 40 years.

 
At 1:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been waiting for the left electorate to adopt a left strategy for decades now.

We've been settling for galloping fascism in a futile attempt at thwarting galloping naziism for 30 years. Nothing about any of that is "left".

 

Post a Comment

<< Home