Strangling North Dakota with no mercy
I was really surprised by how many people fell for Obama's pretty words even though his Senate voting record showed that he was going to do the same exact thing that Bush did (only be able to lie better about it).
I feel like a lot of people continue to support Obama just so they don't have to admit that they fell for his lies. They continue to "hope" for change even though the evidence shows it's not going to happen.
I'm a conservative so take this for whatever value you may: I told anyone who would listen that Obama's high-flying liberal rhetoric would not transpose smoothly into a Progressive Revolution and I believe many liberals had hoped. Instead of taking the country in a new direction, Obama and Congressional Democrats have further alienated young voters and earned the hatred of the center-right majority of the country. The Obama Administration is on a collision course with the designation as the worst Presidential Administration of all time. Jimmy Carter call your office!
I was not surprised, but nevertheless, I am deeply disappointed and distressed.
Love, C.
I added a link to your blog on my blog: http://amte.wordpress.com
I would appreciate it if you returned the favor.
Props to the Socialist Appeal for calling Obama out on the bullshit. I have long debated "progressives" and "liberals" about the shortcomings of their beloved Party and have always been told we need a majority. Well they got it in 2006, nothing changed. Oh well we need a majority and the presidency. No fucking excuses now!
But why does the Socialist Appeal always end its articles the same way? "a mass party of labor based on the unions is needed" all this after pointing out how ineffectual the unions have been in supporting political action in the past.
The arrival of a third party based on labor in the U.S. can mean only one thing a symptom class struggle -- an hegemonic attempt to co-opt a powerful direct action movement. How many small Marxist political clubs have ever expropriated factories? It is unions that do that, my friends, and only a certain kind -- not the obvious bureaucratic types we see all around; rather it is the syndicalist style unions, based on rank and file direct democracy and collective direct action that achieve such revolutionary results.
Just think of what would have a greater impact on ending Obama's "afpak" war: a mass labor party, taking decades if not centuries (the history of social democracy in Europe is very instructive) to politely forward socialist policies or a concerted direct action campaign against war industries?
Hey Adam,
The articles are geared towards someone who this might be the first (and perhaps one of the few) articles that they read on the subject. This is why they always end of with a "solution" of sorts. There is plenty of academic left-wing stuff out there, so we try and gear towards actual working people. Not that it can't be improved or anything, and it being too formulaic is an issue we try and balance against, so any ideas are welcome.
I agree the unions are bureaucratic piles of shit, but that is where the workers are. Because we have no labor party here, workers turn to their unions. And they turn to the established unions. Despite the numbers being down, and the horrible leadership, millions of workers are in unions like AFL-CIO and the Teamsters, etc. These are obvious places to work in.
But I have to ask, how many of the factory occupations across the world have been done by revolutionary syndicalist unions? How many factory occupations has the IWW been behind? The main reason I no longer am a Wobbly isn't because I disagree with their class struggle attitude, it is because they are largely irrelevant. A quick look through IWW.org and you will see nothing on Iran, Honduras, or any other major recent event. Instead, a Wobbly debates a Libertarian. When they do have analysis of current events, it is largely through the prism of "is it good for unions" disregarding the fact that unions aren't always progressive (eg, the infamous IWW article supporting the bosses in the lockout in Venezeula). Not to completely talk down on the IWW, however, as their campaign to organize the sectors of the workplace not typically organized is awesome and needed. We need "white collar" workers and service workers unionized too. Anyway, the point is, I am convinced that Marxism provides the best analysis of society, which allows us to format the best ideas on how to change society. In my opinion, the IMT is the organization that will be, and with keeping proportion in mind, is, at the forefront of a world revolution movement.
We are not trying to build a social democratic party. We are building a revolutionary socialist party in order to seize state power. Right now, however, consciousness is not at that level. I can't come into a union meeting and talk about a revolutionary socialist party without making myself irrelevant. Consciousness lags behind events. This is why we write stuff like "Nationalize the auto industry under workers' control." Not because this is going to happen tomorrow, but because when someone reads that, it plants a seed. Right now, a labor party would have all sorts of elements, and not all progressive. Certainly there'd be some nationalists as well as reformists, but a political break with the Dems would be extremely progressive and right now I would love to have the problem of working within a labor party.
The bottom line is, we can use direct action to occupy factory after factory, or we can nationalize the commanding heights of the economy (under a worker controlled state) and be done with it. All it takes is a few banks and a few multi-nationals and then it's game over. Of course I support factory occupations (the IMT is playing a leading role in this movement in Venezuela), but this is a defensive action. We need to go on the offensive. Obviously, this isn't going to happen tomorrow, but with world events going as they are going, it could be sooner than we might expect.
Hey Graeme,
I guess this disagreement once again comes down to (aside from some minor semantic differences) to a belief or not in what a state possibly could be -- whether a working class party takeover would lead to classlessness or not. I would argue it can't simply for structural reasons.
Anyway, I heard I missed you being in Fargo by one weekend -- too fucking bad, it would be good to catch up in person. I am trying to head your way for this: http://www.facebook.com/home.php...44911531&
ref=ts
I'll give you a call soon to see what my plans are and if you'll be around.
For sure! I only stopped in quick on my way through. I did get to say hi to Wade though.
Cool, yet me know. I plan on going to that as well.
This is only indirectly related to this conversation, but interesting none the less:
http://www.marxist.com/la-occupi...ian-
workers.htm
Obama is objectively giving aid and comfort to the coup in Honduras. The US ambassador was talking to the coup plotters throughout, in banana republic style.
Anyone who has read this blog any amount of time, shouldn't be surprised by what Obama turned out to be.
The Democratic Party is the main obstacle to social change.
I'm sticking with the IWW despite shortcomings because I believe a general strike is the best weapon and I believe the IWW is open to change at many levels. This is not to say a workers party would not be useful in stretching the discourse but playing the game requires a strong stomach!
Well, I'll admit to voting for Obama, but only because I got sucked into that whole crazy conservatives vs. intelligent erudite argument. If I had a do over now, I'd have voted for Cynthia McKinney, she still wouldn't have won, but I wouldn't feel so stupid for falling for the whole Democrat>Republican charade.
Hey Lew! Nice to hear from you.
I was not surprised, but nevertheless, I am deeply disappointed and distressed.
___________________
Andrew
Online Marketing of your brand
Commenting by HaloScan
