Friday, August 20, 2004

A Lost Cause?

By Stephen Gowans

Read full article...

Posted 08/20 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Is the ‘Hard’ left and it’s self annointed ‘true’ members like Mr. Gowans going to offer anything other than daily rants like this one? Did we not know Kerry was a wanker 6 months ago? Mr. Gowans smug self-satisfaction seems to demonstrate that he is perfectly content with repeating old news (with added shock value to accentuate ‘hardness’)and simply hurling his cute and nasty barbs from the comfortable corner of hard left purity that he believes he inhabits. Despite recent indescretions, to tack Zinn et all with the ‘soft’ label would be farily laughable if it we not so meanspirited…

    Posted by RzG from  on  08/20  at  11:21 PM

  2. As per St. Clair’s comments (in Joshua Frank’s interview here) and Gowans’ comments regarding the Dem candidate...Leftists MUST determine to challenge each person who opens their mouth with a single kind word for Kerry. Not a kind word should be permitted!  If you’re having difficulty seeing Kerry as EVIL (in the terms delineated in my article on Flannery O’Connor) and seeing his supporters --for whatever reason-- as big of a threat as any Bush supporters...you’re not clear on what’s going on and/or you don’t have the courage to do what must be done.  To wit, we’re all going to have to align ourselves with smaller groups than ever before to contend with the vast majority of citizens who are either propping up one of the Two Abominations or putting up with what’s been coming down the pike for too long.  You do not have to carry a gun to declare War On These Shores.  There is much you can do, and you can begin by doing away with the notion that the vast majority of “progressives” are merely misguided...as opposed to being stupid, dangerous and, yes (in the terms delineated in my article), as EVIL as Iago.  Shakespearean Ox P.S. Please don’t lecture me on the difference between Othello’s underling and the unctuous M. Moore.

    Posted by Shakespearean Ox from  on  08/20  at  11:22 PM

  3. George Carlin was my hero as a child.  If it wasn’t for him I would probably be some kind of racist Catholic like the rest of my family.

    Posted by Justin Felux from San Antonio, TX  on  08/21  at  12:49 AM

  4. Another welcome voice of clarity in the media wilderness, and definitely something that needed saying one more time.

    Put a bit more crudely than I would have, perhaps, but crassness is understandable in the face of the stubborn naivety overwhelmingly demonstated by Kerry apologists on the left these days.

    All I can add is BRAVO!

    Posted by Paladin from Michigan, USA  on  08/21  at  10:40 AM

  5. As someone who recently rewrote Love Me I’m a Liberal- found here on PressAction - I most appreciated the humor and reality put forward here.  Nevertheless I think there is a variety of interpretations that can be made of those who have endorsed Kerry.  Moore is an artist, which as a rule means he is probably not politically savvy. So chalk his endorsement to that of Waco Wesley.  Tariq Ali, Naomi Klein and Ed Herman are people who I have respected my entire life as anti-authoritarian leftists who put their activity where their words are (a play on putting their money where their mouth is.) While I can’t say I entirely disagree with their argument, one should at least - as a writer at Cpunch did - adress the points being made.

    Further is the notion put forward at an excellent site put forwad by Friends is http://www.dontjustvote.com The point here is not to endorse Kerry OR Nader or whoever the sects put forward. (I myself won’t endorse Kerry for the reasons you put forward, but I won’t endorse Nader either - he needs to talk more about what he would do if he won, and ditch the “losing our sovereignty” jive)

    The point is that elections mean very little in the scheme of things, and that energy that Anti-Bush Americans experiencing their political awakening through the current broad movement shold be channeled to truly radical ends, not just getting a liberal into office and “working within the system.” The mistake that the sixties antiwar movmenet made was to concentrate on Gramscian, hegemonic struggles in various spheres of American life - education for one - in which they have now grown fat, but there are still entire sectors that are basically - as the right wingers fear - controlled by what non leftists call the left...they are the embryonic state in which future struggles will be built.  The struggle should not be towards a single target, but an archer’s bullseye

    Posted by j cummings from  on  08/21  at  12:53 PM

  6. I’m not sure I understand the last sentence in Jordy’s comment #5 above. The dontjustvote passes in terms of the very general concept that we can all be doing something constructive, but...it avoids the unpleasant aspects of what we must do and the limitations w/i our system. Michael Moore should be addressed in more depth here. I look at him...not as an artist, but as a millionaire plus who made his $$$ churning out films plus.  He is in an influential position, and he’s been devoting himself to making more money and supporting an extremely damaging agenda for The Left. Regarding the former, he’s VERY saavy...and has decided --like so many other entertainers-- to play prostitute where it pays. Whether or not he actually believes what he spouts is irrelevant here.  The point is that we have an obligation to call people on their behavior irrespective of their vocation.

    Posted by Unmoored Ox from  on  08/21  at  03:12 PM

  7. Just some wordplay.  I meant that in regards to the notion of an archer with an aspective gaze - who concentrates so he is one with the bow, thus hitting a bull’s eye without even considering it, as opposed to an archer gazing perspectivally(like much of the left at times like now) either playing electoral politics of the the politics of specificity.  A return to anti-capitalism is needed, I think - but overall I meant a bull’seye in regards to what we will know when we see.  I am echoing comments made about all these “take back” movements, reformist movements, etc. - what is needed is a return to actual systemic and anti-capitalist critiques and a move away from either talking about Bush and war all the time or talking about name your pet issue, from the death penalty to media reform. 

    One of the things I like and have always liked about Monthly Review, the only magazine I subscribe to - and as well the pieces that Seth writes here - is the focus on capitalism itself.  To hate it, you have to understand it, and too few people even know how to read the Wall Street Journal.....I am digressing but I really hope that we see a return to a worldwide anti-capitalist movement, butressed by social democracies that may well evolve into socialist states, in the global south....thats what I would call a bullseye.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  08/21  at  06:25 PM

  8. Your comments are trenchant about the sameness of the two major candidates on the war issue, and in the process place the war issue where it should be - square first among all the others.  I’m with you in hoping as much for a Kerry defeat as a Bush defeat.  If Nader doesn’t make the ballot in Illinois, I’m not going to vote.  But I take issue with your comments about Fahrenheit 9/11, whatever its faults, as being a pro-imperialist screed.  It is an important and worthwhile movie just for catching the true hatefulness of the Bush administration.  I also take issue with you unfriendly characterization of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Robert Jensen, who have split the difference on a call all have admitted was distasteful, and offered a practical strategy for voting.  Greg Bates makes the same shrewd observation in his excellent book, Ralph’s Revolt.  You make strong arguments, almost enough to persuade me, but in a sense given how little the factual outcome will mean to the vast majority, and thusly little difference either way Bush or Kerry, either or which is unfortunately a foregone conclusion, perhaps you are being a little unfair to criticize such admirable figures as Chomsky and Zinn.  Chomsky also said immediately after he made his split decision for Kerry, and I quote from Bates’s book: “Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion - which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist.” That’s not to underrate your criticisms of Democratic Socialists of America, MoveOn organization, and the U.S. Communist Party which I think are right on.  With all that, a great, powerful article.  Hilarious introduction.

    RzG paints Gowans with a cheap brush in a couple of sentences that reflects more fairly on him, rather than on the eloquence of the fine essay Gowans writes

    If Nader’s smart enough to run the campaign he’s run, and to make the historical social commitment he’s made, I should hope he’s smart enough to look at his 3% in the polls and his banishment from many state ballots to know he’s not going to win.  Poppycock that Nader should talk about what he should do if he would win.  Of course he knows he won’t win.  His anti-corporate message is the rhetoric we should be hearing from all the candidates - leave alone his aura of honesty and integrity - and are the kernel of all our society’s problems.  I would think even Nader thinks that this is his campaign’s raison d’etre.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  08/21  at  06:42 PM

  9. The I have a question regarding the following quote:  “Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion - which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist.”
    WHY do they exist?  I have other questions too. Why don’t we hear more charges among The Left with regard to Kerry his murderous policies?  Why are we NOT acknowledging just how much we oppose those who support him to any degree whatsoever?  Why is there such a fuzzy line separating the likes of Soft and Hard Lefties?  Why aren’t we calling The Soft by their...more appropriate names?  Questioning Ox

    Posted by Irritated Ox from  on  08/21  at  09:58 PM

  10. “I think the world is run by ‘C’ students.”
    --Al McGuier

    Posted by Scott Beckman from Santa Fe, NM  on  08/21  at  11:16 PM

  11. For all the wonderful things coming from you Richard, at times you appear to be simply bouncing off the walls. If the ‘Hard’ left of which you speak should be asking of elections ‘WHY do they exist?’ - why should it spend it’s time deliniating who’s on what side of the ‘fuzzy line’, or sure-ing up that line, a game that results in ‘hurt feelings,’ followed by back-and-forth, and the ultimately the sorry prospect of having to ‘declare one’s crentials.’ If the hard left seeks to go beyond electoral politics if has to offer something more than a constant steam of critque OF electoral politics - In my opinion you’re in fact unwittingly proving Chomsky’s quote (which is of course suffers under this rather pedantic over-analysis) correct. This is not a plea for phoney solidarity, but rather a plea not to be consumed by the game of who’s more radical…

    Lest anyone gets the wrong idea, I certainly appreciate much of what Mr Gowans has written, here and elsewhere. But I do stand by my reaction - admittedly a visceral one - to this article and my initial comments on it, for the above reasons.

    Posted by RzG from  on  08/22  at  12:37 AM

  12. You’re missing the point, much like Gowans’ stereotypical “teenage daughter” dating the porno star.  And it is revealed in your very first entry regarding Kerry...referring to him as a “wanker.” THAT is what I call “bouncing off the walls.” The point I’m making in asking my question above is that people are using such language about both Kerry AND the elections, not acknowledging them for what they are...as Gowans is; Kerry is a murderer, not a wanker, the elections are a scam (Scam), not a “diversion” from good works that Chomsky would have us keep our nose in.  Idle talk in lieu of action?  Perhaps you’d be better off --we’d all be better off-- if you answered the question I keep asking in these quarters instead of trying to fine tune the criticism of Kerry The Murderer and Moore The Supporter of The Murderer. To wit, address the reason why my proposal for action vis-a-vis Leno/Letterman (which is, in part, concerned with pulling people out of their little Chomsky/Albert corners for something more than “phoney” solidarity, to use your term) has not been met with more interest on Press Action. Hurt feelings?  If all I’ve put out there ONLY results in hurt feelings it’s quite a statement coming from you.  Let’s get over the mood swings and address what I’m truly BOUNCING OFF THE WALLS OVER....  What Gowans is freaking out over.  This has zero to do with disrespecting people like Zinn...which is what you seem to want to reduce this necessary confrontation to; it is essential to get clarity on who Kerry and other issues.  There is none here.  What do you agree with that we’re putting to you?

    Posted by Bouncing Ox from  on  08/22  at  08:49 AM

  13. Nevermind the sexism of terms like “Soft” and “Hard” (and/or if you will, the notion that virile radicals are better than flaccid ones?)

    Posted by j cummings from  on  08/22  at  08:51 AM

  14. Although there’s no sexism involved in the terms intended, and there’s no reason to go that route, regardless, semantically, there IS a great sense of impotency plaguing The Left. And --just to clarify-- when I use that term...I’m not referring to one testicle over the other.
    Balsey (as in Full of Chutzpah) Ox

    Posted by Chutzpah Ox from  on  08/22  at  09:39 AM

  15. “In short, the election’s a distraction from the war we must embrace, internationally.”

    -Richard Oxman, February 10, 2004

    Unless one cares to split hairs over the words ‘distraction’ and the ‘diversion,’ perhaps you agree that (while calling it out) we should refrain from cruxifying one another over past word choice?

    Posted by RzG from  on  08/22  at  12:50 PM

  16. There’s not a significant distinction to be made, as far as I’m concerned, between “distraction” and “diversion” in the context in question. I appreciate your sticking with this messiness, but, once again, I feel the need to underscore the importance of calling for confrontation w/i The Left...that’s being avoided. I do not intend to crucify very many people --least of all you-- and I do not consider what I’ve laid out above to be on that order...except where it’s deserved.  There IS crucifixion going on, however, in many quarters w/i The Left...where it it NOT called for.  Blood will be shed by those with boots on their necks as it is being...by the full-booted, including academics who --through denial, the need for maintaining personal comfort, lack of vision, whatever-- essentially support the status quo.  Pol Pot, to put it VERY mildly, had no business doing what he did.  However, one can see the disgust that people all over the world feel regarding Ivory Tower individuals calling the shots...just short of what will undermine their personal routines. Scott Beckman in #10 above said something about the world being run by “C” students.  Instructive.  But...not in the way he thinks, perhaps.  It has been run by “A” students...with the same results.  What we need is not individuals who excel w/i the System’s parameters, but, rather, individuals who are prepared to do away with the System.  Systematically...starting today.  That’s what the Leno/Letterman idea is about.  In solidarity, Ox P.S. Truly, thanks.

    Posted by The Systemic/Seismic Ox from  on  08/22  at  02:22 PM

  17. Ox of Humor,

    The open to interpretation quote I submitted was intended to advance the spirit of Carlin that opened the piece.  The ‘instructive’ value I had in mind was about we the people who keep electing lousy leaders, not the leaders themselves. 

    Your reflection on the similarities of actions taken by leaders of all IQs is instructive, too.

    Sincerely,

    Scott

    Posted by Scott Beckman from Santa Fe, NM  on  08/22  at  03:19 PM

  18. Thanks for the clarity, Scott. Love your “we the people” focus, of course.  Appreciative Ox

    Posted by Appreciative Ox from  on  08/22  at  03:29 PM

  19. Democracy: A dogfight between the two factions of the Capitalist Party. So, big surprise. We’re the same as the commies and their one-party state.

    Answer? Be a dissident, seek confrontation, write more samizdat on the web. It’s a long, slow process...but the democratic wall will come tumbling down.

    Webites of the World Unite! You Have Only Your Links to Lose.

    Posted by Ed Strong from  on  08/22  at  05:28 PM
    20. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Realism and Inhumanity

    Previous entry: Shooting at Whales: 40 Years after Tonkin

    [ads]

    Support Press Action