Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "Jimmy Dore Has FINALLY Transformed Into Jimmy Durr" video.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
@NJ-wb1cz You'll notice I never supported Jimmy Dore. In fact, I said I didn't think Jimmy was taking the position OP laid out. I don't think Jimmy has a principled, coherent, or informed take on this issue. He's only offering apathy and impotent discontent, which is a major problem. That's far from what I'm saying. What I agreed with was OP's notion that the state and the power it represents is a corrupting and moderating force on progressive politicians.
This debate would be much shorter if you took a few seconds to actually read and understand what I wrote, rather than flying off the handle with preconceived ideas of what you think I said.
The policies you're laying out, like M4A, are not bad reforms. What I'm arguing against is an over reliance on reformism, incrementalism, and insurgent politicians to substitute for work that is better reserved for—indeed, can only be accomplished by—the organization of people to act on their own behalf. Even Sanders, who favors the incrementalist approach, has said that M4A will require the mass mobilization of the working class to push through Congress. What I'm saying is, why prematurely limit the horizon of action at a temporary political agenda? Why not instead build mass movements that can as a byproduct exert pressure on politicians but have as their main goal the development of autonomous, decentralized, democratic institutions which can provide the framework for a possible world post-state and post-government?
Traditional politics is where radical movements go to die, where they are moderated and coopted by larger and contradictory forces within the state. This is why I said it is important to have a systemic analysis of power, not to just rely on the good intentions of individuals.
History has shown that the social democrats of the past, who were far more radical than today's progressives, were capable of reformism; but they were also capable of destroying the labor movements in their countries—France in 1910 in France, 1918 in Germany, 1936 in Spain, 1945 in England, the 60s in France, the 70s in England, and virtually the entirety of the early 20th century in America.
By becoming part of the political machine of repression, and stewards of incremental improvement, they inherit the values and interests of the state. To even operate and propose their agenda, they must compromise with the very system they should be fighting against. AOC's Green New Deal is a good and needed reform; but it is, like its namesake, another way of reconfiguring and preserving capitalism, the very thing which provoked the climate crisis.
Progressive politicians who do not play by the rules find themselves unable to act in a way that is meaningful for their constituents, because the power of the srate and capital are over determined. Yanis Varoufakis is a great example of a socialist politician who simply could not enact needed reforms because, despite being the only sensible reforms, they were deemed impractical by the EU.
Alexander Berkman laid out this process of cooption:
It is power which corrupts... Moreover, even with the best intentions Socialists [who get elected]... find themselves entirely powerless to accomplishing anything of a socialistic nature... The demoralisation and vitiation [this brings about] take place little by little, so gradually that one hardly notices it himself... [The elected Socialist] perceives that he is regarded as a laughing stock [by the other politicians]... and finds more and more difficulty in securing the floor... he knows that neither by his talk nor by his vote can he influence the proceedings ... His speeches don’t even reach the public... [and so] He appeals to the voters to elect more comrades... Years pass... [and a] number ... are elected. Each of them goes through the same experience... [and] quickly come to the conclusion... [that] They must show that they are practical men... that they are doing something for their constituency... In this manner the situation compels them to take a ‘practical’ part in the proceedings, to ‘talk business,’ to fall in line with the matters actually dealt with in the legislative body... Spending years in that atmosphere, enjoying good jobs and pay, the elected Socialists have themselves become part and parcel of the political machinery... With growing success in elections and securing political power they turn more and more conservative and content with existing conditions. Removal from the life and suffering of the working class, living in the atmosphere of the bourgeoisie... they have become what they call ‘practical’... Power and position have gradually stifled their conscience and they have not the strength and honesty to swim against the current... They have become the strongest bulwark of capitalism."
E: also note that I raised the BPP to counter your claim that these dual power organizations receive "no pushback" and are "the path of least resistance." In your next comment, you dodge addressing this for a new bizarre claim—the BPP didn't get universal healthcare passed...Which is bizarre on multiple fronts. For one, the BPP wasn't a reformist political pressure group. Its primary goal was never to eke support from a hostile political elite. It was a revolutionary group for the self-empowerment of the black community through direct action. Direct action means meeting the needs of people through self-orgsnization rather than by pleading with bureaucrats. But despite that, the BPP did appear to have provoked the government to make some positive changes, eg by setting an example with their children's lunch program.
3
-
"Since government today has the power, through the legal system, to regulate daily life and to broaden or restrict the liberty of the citizen, and because we are still unable to tear this power from its grasp, we must seek to reduce its power and oblige governments to use it in the least harmful ways possible. But this we
must do always remaining outside, and against, government, putting pressure on it through agitation in the streets, by threatening to take by force what we demand. Never must we accept any kind of legislative position, be it national or
local, for in so doing we will neutralise the effectiveness of our activity as well as betraying the future of our cause."
Errico Malatesta
3
-
1
-
@NJ-wb1cz By your second comment I can tell you're quite unacquainted with the socialist tradition and labor history. That's okay. If you like, I can recommend some information.
For one, the notion that unions, affinity groups, and the like aren't repressed, receive no pushback, is historically illiterate in the extreme. It is far from the path of least resistance (apparently you think ticking a box in a voting booth is some form of resistance). Look at the Black Panther Party. That was a dual power organization engaged in meaningful direct action within their communities. Are you going to tell me the BPP received no pushback?
Even if constructing new social forms and institutions were somehow the path of least resistance, it would still be necessary if what we want is a world organized by producers because we need people to be able to self-organize democratically, not rely on electing rulers every few years.
Second, this prefigurative strategy of dual power is antithetical to utopian socialist projects which have always been criticized for pretending to remove participants from society while doing nothing to change society.
E: also, you put "radical" in quotes, which just tells me you didn't know what that term means in this context. A radical trade union differs from a trade union insofar as the latter exists merely to negotiate on workers' behalf within a capitalistic framework. These unions often get coopted and are rendered more or less inert, their leadership at times working against the interests of their members. Radical trade unions, like the CNT, were built on horizontal structures for the express purpose of militantly undermining capitalism while also bargaining for workers in the short term.
If there is a path of least resistance, it is precisely electoralism and reformism, which do not challenge the prevailing power structure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NJ-wb1cz All you've demonstrated is that you either can't read or are acting in bad faith.
Using "little clubs" as a disphemism for worker controlled organizations is peak reactionary.
If there were a quote you could've used to pin down my position, this seems the most reasonable, which oddly enough you didn't include:
The policies you're laying out, like M4A, are not bad reforms. What I'm arguing against is an over reliance on reformism, incrementalism, and insurgent politicians to substitute for work that is better reserved for—indeed, can only be accomplished by—the organization of people to act on their own behalf. Even Sanders, who favors the incrementalist approach, has said that M4A will require the mass mobilization of the working class to push through Congress. What I'm saying is, why prematurely limit the horizon of action at a temporary political agenda? Why not instead build mass movements that can as a byproduct exert pressure on politicians but have as their main goal the development of autonomous, decentralized, democratic institutions which can provide the framework for a possible world post-state and post-government?
Answers to those questions would be nice.
1
-
@user-wl2xl5hm7k The CNT was a trade union, not a political party. If you read accounts like Beevor's, Bookchin's, Mintz's or Danny Evans', it's clear that the moment the CNT leadership began to centralize and cooperate with the Popular Front—to be a participant in state repression—it began to undermine the legitimate and viable revolutionary aims of its members.
I'm not opposed to specific reforms, but what I've been at pains to express is that of course the interests of the state and capital are going to warp the good intentions of progressives, who will ultimately serve those interests against the interests of workers or be marginalized and expelled from the political class. This is a matter of history and present reality, and I've given a number of examples.
A fundamental principle of anarchism is that there must be a unity of means and ends. As a centralized, authoritarian structure, the state (and by proxy a liberal party) cannot be the means to effect socialist ends. That is what I meant by traditional politics being a dead end. If someone sees social democracy and the welfare state as ends in themselves, then I fundamentally disagree with their reactionary project.
Having a reformist party is not a bad thing if it is acknowledged as such and transcended. Moreover, it should not be the center of political action since even a reformist party will serve to coopt, moderate, disrupt, and defuse a workers' movement that it cannot control away from social revolution and toward more reformism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1