Dmytri Kleiner on Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:21:29 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> The Left Needs a New Strategy



So, I don't buy my ink by the barrel, so can't respond to everything in this gish gallop, but I'll share my notes.

- I'm the real narcissist, possibly crazy.
- Some boilerplate stuff about "us and them purism"
- I'm a tankie LARPer with "heroes"
- Some filler words about being more than "against capitalism"
- Broadly cast insults towards non-Bernie supporters, nihilistic street fighters, confused clowns or paleo-Communist orgmen and women.
- US-centric filler words about what the right is doing.
- Yet more filler words about aesthetics.
- Some swipes at outdated leftist and dreamy anarchists.
- Some grandstanding about self-declared enemies and off duty cops with guns.
- Comments on Capitol rioters as strategy

I mean, the blovial density is impressive, but there is not much in the above that I care to respond to, as it bears little relation to what I wrote, which is fair enough, my text had little to do with what you wrote. So maybe it was useful for you write this out, maybe others will find it useful.

In terms of strategy, you note:

- Embracing Black, Brown and Indigenous leadership

Now this is really key, I would add embracing the leadership of the young, the queer and the formerly colonized to this.

So what does embracing this leadership look like?

For one, it must start with the practices promoted by Freire, McAlevey and others. Which means listening to the problems as they describe them, deferring to their organic leadership, and engaging dialogically, not telling then what you think they should know and trying to improving them by depositing your knowledge into their empty vessel.

The key is not being a third party. The strategy you focus on is not only US-centric, tho many Black, Brown and Indigenous people who are harmed by the US are not in the US, but it's entirely propagandist in Freire's words, it's all about explaining and convincing. It's a disengaged, third party approach and that is doomed to fail.

Also, in my experience, the black, brown,and indigenous people either in the US or outside are far less likely to call me a tankie larper, so it doesn't feel to me like you are really listening to them or even know their point of view.

You believe what they really need to do is listen to you. This is not going to happen, so it's not much of a strategy.


- Political strategy is not a set of talking points

Indeed it's not, yet all you offer is (lengthy and meandering) talking points.

Political strategy requires what McAlevey (drawing on Mills) calls a power structure analysis, how are you going to force the opposition to give you what you want?

You mention the DSA in what I think was intended to be a positive light, hard to tell given the proximity to various denouncements, so here is a McAlevey Study Guide published by the DSA:

https://fund.dsausa.org/files/sites/10/2019/07/No-Shortcuts-Discussion-Guide-for-DSA-Fund-Website.pdf

She distinguishes between the liberal and progressive theories of power and endorses a proletarian theory instead. She explains why the liberal and progressive practices, what she refers to as advocacy and mobilizing, are shallow and ineffective, and calls for deep organizing, which is rooted in the leadership and efforts of the workers themselves. She strongly condemns third-party strategies rooted in explaining, convincing, advocating, mobilizing, negotiating on behalf of, etc. Freire would obviously approve.

This is a real strategy, not a set of talking points. It is the strategy of the left, and it's not new.

- Convince well over 50% of society to make a change of course

So there it is, "convincing."

Your theory of power is propagandist in Freire's terms, not dialogical, and your strategy is not a strategy, in McAlevey's terms, because it is not rooted in the efforts of the workers themselves.

But yes, it sure would be great if over 50% of society would believe stuff like healthcare should be free, housing is a right, education should be available to all, etc.

But wait! Billions of people already do, yeah some in the US, but billions in the global left, in China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, quite a few in Bolivia and Venezuala, and millions more in movements like MST and unions like NUMSA, they already believe what you want to convince people of! What's more, they have even won power and put much if it into practice. This is why the liberal and progressive sections of the US left are trained to hate and denounce them.

Wouldn't it be great if the US left would join and work with the global left rather than than throwing around cartoonish cold-war-and-nazi-propaganda and rejecting and denouncing them at every turn?

Now, given what João Pedro wrote, quoted in a different response here, about the rise of China and the new global possibilities this is opening up, you might think that this should be taken into account in any talk of, you know, a "strategy" for the left?

Best,


On 2021-01-11 23:18, Brian Holmes wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:57 PM Dmytri Kleiner

The point is to contribute to what's actually happening.

--
Dmytri Kleiner
@dmytri
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: