One of the most common complaints among progressives is that we don’t have a vision of how to actually change the world. But to paraphrase Marx, it seems to me that our goal shouldn’t be to just change the world (especially given the abuse of the word “change” in the current election cycle). Instead we ought to transform it. And in… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (19)Page 1 of 1 pagesObama recently made some encouraging remarks about what he means by “change” (finally!). These included reforming the tax code, but I think it was mostly a matter of reversing Republican tax policies. This is certainly no economic transformation. As you say, he has made it known that his foreign policy would be that of previous centrist Presidents rather than that of George W. Bush. He has also mentioned Kennedy and Reagan in this regard. What is amazing is that his most ardent supporters refuse to hear what he says. They believe that he is the progressive candidate, which seems to be a wish-fulfilling fantasy. To the extent that anyone knows his policies (which isn’t much, and yes I have studied his website), he seems to be fairly cautious and mainstream, leaning liberal. I think there is a chance that he could be progressive on some issues, but the problem is that no one has much basis for believing that, and some of his supporters admit that they really have no idea what he would actually do as President - except that it would be “something different”. It would not take much to improve over W or McCain, so I think the picture is fairly positive based on his record, but it won’t be pretty a year from now when the faux progressive blogosphere screams that he has betrayed them, when all he is doing is being the President he said he would be. Not being McGovern, maybe he can even win the election, but we’ll still be an imperialist, militarist nation with the top 1% controlling as much or more wealth than the bottom 95%. I would hope for great improvement in judicial nominations and appointments of competent people to run government agencies, and perhaps an end to the most flagrant civil liberties and human rights abuses.
Posted by DeanOR on May 25, 2008 at 6:26 PM While the 1972 campaign had the potential (if McGovern gone on to defeat Nixon) to radically transform American society while also having significant international impact, an Obama victory in 2008 would lead to important reforms in the years ahead.
Well, yes, but back in the real world McGovern was crushed in the popular vote and in the Electoral College, meaning that the great majority of the American people rejected McGovern’s Leftist views, regardless of Brociner’s admiration for those views.
Now, stop and consider: When was the last time an overt leftist was elected to the office of President? Exactly never, of course.
The only two successful Democratic candidates for President since the Democratic Party went Marxist forty years ago were Carter and Clinton, both non-ideologues as Democrats go. There is a precise calibration in the degree of leftist tendencies in a Democratic candidate for President and the magnitude of his loss; the further left he is the worse he will do in the general election. And Obama is the leftmost candidate since McGovern, at least.
Why is this? No Communist/Socialist/ Progressive/Liberal revolution has ever been led by the workers in whose name the revolution is conducted. Lenin’s revolution was financed by Stalin, who robbed banks for the Party. The leaders of such revolutions are professional agitators and the intelligencia: journalists, professors, lawyers, and such. Real workers bail when they have the opportunity, as the voters in West Virginia and Kentucky recently did. You can’t win a presidential election in the United States when your only constituencies are UCLA, NYT, CBS, and Blacks.
Brociner may not be perfectly happy with Obama, who fails in the degree of Leftist perfection in comparison to McGovern, but the workers of the United States have BO’s number. Brociner may take consolation in that Obama’s crushing defeat at the hands of American workers will rival that of his hero, George McGovern.
Posted by scorp on May 26, 2008 at 11:17 AM The magnitude of McGovern’s loss to Nixon in 1972 was due to a wide variety of factors - many of which had nothing to do with McGovern’s progressive politics. This is not to say that McGovern would have won had it not been for, say, the terrible damage his reputation suffered as a result of the fiasco that resulted from his choice of Thomas Eagleton as his running mate - to name only one of the non-ideological factors that contributed to his landslide defeat.
But really, scorp, if you honestly believe that “the Democratic Party went Marxist forty years ago”, I would suggest you brush up a bit on the basics of political ideologies and American history.
Posted by kenbrociner on May 26, 2008 at 2:51 PM Ken -
The magnitude of McGovern’s loss to Nixon in 1972 was due to a wide variety of factors - many of which had nothing to do with McGovern’s progressive politics.
Why, sure! The Soviet Union collapsed as a result of Socialist corruption, inefficiency, and incompetence, in addition to Marx’s faulty philosophy, and I have no trouble attributing McGovern’s collapse to additional factors characteristics of McGovern’s Socialist ideology. Ditto Dukakis. Ditto Mondale. Ditto Gore. Ditto Kerry. Did you actually read what I wrote?
Kerry is the classic case of moral corruption combined with Socialist ideology. Kerry voted against the Gulf War, which was undoubtedly his core belief. But in the event, the Gulf War was one of the most brilliant feats of arms in history (thanks to John Boyd and Dick Cheney). So, after 09/11 Kerry did not want to be on the wrong side (bad for his Presidential prospects, you know?), so he voted for the Iraq War, an act of political expediency in violation of his core anti-war beliefs. Then he voted for funding the war before he voted against funding the war (Or do I have that backwards? Whatever.) Then he ran for President as a war hero and an anti-war hero.
Now I am sure that you Socialist ideologues have no problems with Kerry’s moral and rational gyrations and flip-flops in pursuit of your Socialist objectives, but Socialist ideologues are less intelligent than American workers - and that is why you keep losing elections. And BO has less substance and more Socialist ideology than anyone in recent memory, an honor he won from the previous least-qualified-ever presidential candidate, John Kerry.
I would suggest you brush up a bit on the basics of political ideologies and American history.
Please don’t worry. I took honors in American and world history before becoming an engineer, and I need no instruction from you on the subjects.
I am sure that it would be technically more accurate to label contemporary leftist ideology as Gramscian rather than Marxist, but that hardly negates my observations. Gramsci’s cultural communism is not doing too well as the leftist media decays, the Episcopal Church divides, and left-wing politicians pretend to be anything other than what they are.
Posted by scorp on May 26, 2008 at 11:47 PM You seem to relish the opportunity to bait leftists. You are a bright guy who I think is terribly misguided. May I respectfully suggest you take your hostile polemics elsewhere. I am perfectly willing to engage someone who I find to be either: open to argument (however far apart our positions might be) or someone who considers him/herself to be a progressive but who might take a different view on an issue than I do.
As far as I can see, you do not come close to fitting into either category. I am sure David Horowitz would enjoy hearing from you.
All the best,
Ken Brociner
Posted by kenbrociner on May 27, 2008 at 1:19 AM Ken -
You seem to relish the opportunity to bait leftists.
bait, verb
To torment with persistent insult or ridicule: badger, bullyrag, heckle, hector, hound, taunt. Informal needle, ride. Idioms: wave the red flag in front of the bull. See treat well/treat badly/treat.
To disturb by repeated attacks: annoy, bedevil, beleaguer, beset, harass, harry, pester, plague, tease, torment, worry. See feelings, pain/pleasure.
To excite (another) by exposing something desirable while keeping it out of reach: tantalize, tease. See excite/bore/interest.
I have neither tormented, nor insulted, nor ridiculed, nor bullyragged you, so what are you going on about? Is ITT a journalistic effort, or a propaganda rag? Are we engaged in debate, or preaching to the converted? What the hell good would it be for either of us to talk only to people who agree with us, Kos in your case, Horowitz in mine? And while many Leftists are master baiters, I am not.
The thesis of my first post was that leftists do not win presidential elections. That would seem to be self evident, but you chose to explain away McGovern’s performance failings, without addressing subsequent failings of Socialist candidates.
The thesis of my second post was that American workers, who constitute the majority of voters, do not accept Socialist ideology. Again, this is self evident, but you accused me of not being open to argument. How the hell would you know that, not having made any arguments?
Posted by scorp on May 27, 2008 at 11:26 PM Scorp,
I really am not interested in getting into a discussion with someone who actually believes that the Democratic Party is socialist. You - as you have admitted - come from the same place as David Horowitz does - both politically and, I might add, rhetorically….Fine, more power to ya….I really consider it a waste of my valuable time to get into an ideological war with you. Not because I am afraid to do so, but because I would just rather spend my time reaching out to people who are reachable… as well as discussing how to move forward with people I consider to be political allies. Once again, I have absolutely no interest in taking up any more time or energy arguing with a right-wing ideologue.
Feel free to have the last word if you want.
Ken Brociner
Posted by kenbrociner on May 28, 2008 at 12:15 AM Oh, I get it, this is a “progressive” web site, for a minute there, I just thought you had an amazing talent for finding idiot columnists.
Posted by rlcn7910 on May 29, 2008 at 8:27 PM Is it just me or are the Republican trolls sounding more desperate?
And here’s something to consider: It doesn’t matter if you write a smart response, come up with well-worn groaners like “master baiters” or consult your online thesaurus to appear erudite, when you support a vacuous, criminal imbecile like George Bush and his soon-to-be-incarcerated gang of treasonous, Constitution-shredding thugs, you may as well be writing with a crayon stuck up your ass, squatting over a piece of construction paper in a padded room.
They do let you have crayons, don’t they?
Posted by opeluboy on May 29, 2008 at 10:19 PM Scorp, FYI, the fall of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with Marx or Socialism, neither of which were followed by the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union had followed Marx and Socialism it would not have engaged in the cold war and it would have had a viable economy..
Your honors in history seem to have been ill gotten gains.
Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel on Jun 25, 2008 at 6:04 PM I can agree with Kenbrociner that the Democrats are not Socialist, but I think we can all agree the party’s full spectrum is left of center, and that of the two major parties, the Democratic Party contains the higher percentage of genuine socialists among its voters, so if we substitute “leftish” (“leftist” being a little loaded) for scorps “Socialist,” his argument still stands and strikes me as historically accurate: Americans, and especially American working class members, don’t vote for those they consider “leftish.”
And Obama’s rush to the right, toward the center (at an unprecedented speed, in my perception) rather reinforces the point. Where he will govern from no one can predict, because he hasn’t stayed in one place on any policy an longer than it was expedient to do so. As today’s WSJ editorial put it, he is looking like he will be an extension of George W. Bush on any number of issues, both foreign and domestic.
And I would ask Gregory Wonderwheel if there is any historical evidence that suggests that if “the Soviet Union had followed Marx and Socialism…it would have had a viable economy?” I can agree that the USSR was not a Socialist state, in the rather abstract and ahistorical sense it is generally understood in American academia and politics, but what country has been, in actual fact? Most if not all of those we think of as Socialist (e.g., Sweden) were actually welfare capitalist (90% of the means of production being in private hands). And almost all countries who claimed to be Socialist, who posted Socialist as part of their name and claimed to be descendants of Marx, were totalitarian dictatorships that did very little to foster equality or raise the working class. Socialism on the ground has not much of a track record to be proud of, I don’t think.
Posted by Eric L. on Jul 3, 2008 at 5:53 AM Eric L. writes, “but I think we can all agree the party’s full spectrum is left of center,” I’m not sure what this means because the party’‘s full spectrum is both right and left of center. Of course part of this discussion is dependent on how one defines “the center” As the center is defined by the right, then of course the Democrats are primarily left of center. But as the center is defined by progressives there are a great many Democrats are right of center.
As for my claim that the USSR could have been successful if it had followed socialist principles, that is a conclusion based on my observation that any country that is a success is a success to the degree that socialist (in the broadest sense) ideas are included in the picture. I don’t accept that the label “welfare capitalism” means that there is no socialist influence. I know that some people have a very technical definition of socialism which narrows the scope of inquiry and discussion. However, while the U.S. could not be called a “socialist” nation, it is the socialist influence in the U.S. that is the influence which restrains capitalism. Simply calling it welfare capitalism does the socialist influence injustice.
Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel on Jul 9, 2008 at 4:57 AM For Gregory Wonderwheel, “the party’s full spectrum is left of center” in my perception means that the professionals in the party (1) find resort to central government solutions to problems their first impulse; (2) believe that redistributing wealth is a legitimate purpose of tax policy; (3) esteem equality over liberty, when push comes to shove; and (4) see government and the wielding of the power as a career. A little simple-minded, granted, and with some thought, certainly there are Democrats, generally Southern, who don’t fit that pattern and could legitimately be deigned right of center.
But “socialist influence” is not the same as “socialist government,” by any reasonable definition. Your declaration that “any country is a success is a success to the degree that socialist (in the broadest sense) ideas are included in the picture” seems to define socialist as “any idea that makes a country a success” or “ideas I like.” How would you define “a socialist idea”? What makes it socialist, as opposed to liberal, or syndicalist, or social contract-oriented?
I could easily say that successful countries are those that manage the inherent dynamism and flexibility of capitalism to incorporate ideas that optimize both production and liberty while adapting to technological and cultural change and be closer to the truth than appealing to a definition of socialism so vague as to be meaningless except at a completely subjective level. I suppose we will never all completely agree on a definition of capitalism, socialism, and “the center”; we can agree that, in the name of socialism, the Soviet Union was a disaster.
Posted by Eric L. on Jul 9, 2008 at 11:51 AM I wrote a long response that was over the 4000 word limit and the program lost it all when it returned to the previous page.
I’m not goint to write it again. I will just say that we have an entirely different view of reality and all four samples that you use in support of your “left of center” hypothesis are actually just as much examples that show the “right of center” aspects of the Democratic Party.
A socialist idea is one that has for its context and orientation the affirmation of collective responsibility for the planet and society. Socialism is inherently compatible with democracy while capitalism is not. It is the great propaganda success of capitalist plutocrats to make people believe that capitalism is identical with democracy. In fact the two are very much opposed in principle.It is only the daily minute by minute propaganda through advertising that keeps capitalism in control. Capitalism has no concern for actual liberty, only a concern to sell consumerism as the definition of liberty. Capitalism has no inherent dynamism and balance. Capitalism goes only toward monopoly and the stasis. Capitalism works only to the degree that socialist ideas can keep capitalism regulated and in check.
Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel on Jul 9, 2008 at 6:08 PM GW-Sorry I missed your longer essay; I might have learned something. Your definition of a socialist idea posits socialism as a philosophy or ideology,an orientation, rather than having any sort of economic foundation. That positions your definition on a much different plane than mine, and makes it a little hard to compare socialism to capitalism, unless you think it, too, is non-economic.
I will have to say that the notion that “capitalism has no inherent dynamism” strikes me as antihistorical. But perhaps you distinguish between capitalism and free markets, which is legitimate philosophically, if hard to find in the real world. And to deny that capitalism has a “concern” for liberty both anthropomorphizes an economic system/ideology and seems to me beside the point: Capitalist societies provide more liberty than nominally socialist ones, whatever the “concerns’’ of capitalism or the intent of capitalists. And consumerism is not the definition of liberty in a capitalist society, merely one manifestation (an unattractive one) of that liberty.
I would have to guess your definition of liberty is rather oriented toward collectivity and the good of society, but esteeming the good of society (whatever that is) over the good of the individual may not be the way to establish either. I fear those who think they can identify clearly what constitutes the good of society who also seek the power to reify their vision; if I disagree with that vision, where is my place in that society?
Posted by Eric L. on Jul 10, 2008 at 12:37 AM Obama will push is socalist ideas and get some sort of health care plan through Congress. McGovern, now there is a name from the past. He seemed so clueless when he ran for President. It was amazing to see a guy so out of touch with American voters. Obama will be put to the test very quickly with Iraq. I hope he does get us out of there quickly. Let’s not have another vietnam like JFK and Johnson gave us. I wonder if Obama will surround himself with “gifted” advisors like JFK did?.
Posted by totsuka on Jul 23, 2008 at 12:11 AM Totsuka -
I have been in project management most of my life. All projects go through six phases:
1. Enthusiasm.
2. Alarm.
3. Panic.
4. Search for the Guilty.
5. Punishment of the Innocent.
6. Praise and Honor for the Uninvolved.The Enthusiasm phase for Iraq began in 1998 when the United States Congress (100% of the Senate and almost 90% of the House) voted for the Iraq Liberation Act 1998 and President Clinton signed it into law. Among the many listed reasons for the Iraq Liberation Act was that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (MWD). Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, Biden, Kerry, Dodd, and Levin, and Representative Kucinich, among many others, voted and made into USA law that Saddam had WMD and needed to be removed from power. After 09/11, the Enthusiasm phase continued when the Congress overwhelmingly passed the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 and President Bush signed it into law.
The Iraq War has been the least expensive war in American history at least as far back as the French and Indian War, both in terms of American casualties and dollar cost as a percentage of GDP. The Iraq War has also been brilliantly successful, and is bringing democracy to a benighted country smack in the middle of the benighted Middle East.
The Dims became Alarmed when they realized that they had voted for war, and that President Bush might get credit for being the Commander-in-Chief during a successful war (unlike the Dim sponsored Korean and Vietnamese Wars). Alarm turned to Panic, as Dims pretended that they had never voted for eliminating WMD and Saddam. The Dims then criticized President Bush and their own country for an endeavor they had voted for. Not only did the Dims criticize their own country, but they became active supporters of the terrorists (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo) against their own country.
The Dims then began the high-profile Search for the Guilty and the Punishment of the Innocent phases, while pretending that they were not guilty themselves. The Dims certainly do not want to be punished for their lying bullshit.
Now Obamateur is trying to position himself to be the recipient of the Praise and Honor for the Uninvolved phase. Obamateur was even more clueless than the Dim Congressmen that voted for the Iraq Liberation Act and the Iraq War Resolution, and now pretends that he did not oppose the Surge, which has been brilliantly successful.
Stay tuned. Enjoy.
Posted by scorp on Jul 23, 2008 at 2:33 PM Eric L wrote: “I would have to guess your definition of liberty is rather oriented toward collectivity and the good of society, but esteeming the good of society (whatever that is) over the good of the individual may not be the way to establish either.”
YEs half right. My orientation to liberty is equally balanced between society and the individual. In the USA the idea of liberty is totally imbalanced toward the individual and thus is not real liberty to me.
On the other hand a totalitarian approach of false collectivity or imposed collectivity would also be an imbalance in the other direction.
I still believe in the ideal of Democracy where liberty is a balance between individual rights and individuals deicing collectively how to govern themselves. Unfortunately as long as capitalism interferes iwth democracy with its advertizing propaganda the essential aspect of information sharing is lost in democratic decision making. I have some hope in the internet as long as it is free of advertising control as bringing some fresh air into our democracy and liberty.
Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel on Jul 28, 2008 at 3:19 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Ken Brociner
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1977 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
