I’ll follow your other pieces with interest.

Likewise, it’s senseless (and dishonest) to disregard underlying social forces. And that was my only point.

http://theleftluggage.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/taking-crime-seriously/

Not on the part of Left Luggage or anyone reading this site. But Left Luggage suggests that the left shouldn’t bother mentioning those things when talking to folks about housing, crime and education.

I’m not suggesting that the “left” (whatever that means) put 100% of the blame on things like poverty and war profiteering…I’m saying that to omit them entirely in any discussion about housing, crime and education would be absurd.

You mention that when talking about (a) housing, education, health, etc. we need to talk about (b) money going to war, occupation and “corporate welfare”. However, by putting it this way you turn things upside down. The fact is that the left talks about (a) primarily in an instrumental way to support their legitimate arguments against (b), rather than talking about (b) as a product of engagement in issues around (a).

The fact that you counterpose “addressing underlying social problems” (which, at least in a structural sense, we are not currently in a position to do) with “build more prisons” betrays a lack of understanding that is rather symptomatic of the problem, if I may say so. Say the estate where you live is plagued by anti-social behaviour. As a progressive, what is your reaction to this situation? Tell people it is a product of capitalism? And therefore that it is inherently impossible to solve given that this economic mode of production seems to be staying put? How many people will want to get involved in progressive movements if this is the case?

Does crime not contain an element of personal responsibility beyond the strutural economic features? Why do levels of crime fluctuate over time independent of economic circumstances? Why do areas with a strong sense of community and personal, social and institutional links between individuals have less fear of (and often simply less) crime? Is crime utterly corrosive to any attempts to build progressive politics in communities? I think these questions all hint at the necessity of engaging with communities and working towards progressive solutions to these immediate problems, rather than kicking them into the long grass because Marx told us that humans are alienated under capitalism.

Finally, you can in fact “address a concern that is based on a lie”. In my experience people usually have some material basis to their views; that’s what gives reactionary views their power. So to undermine a reactionary belief, you can tell a person they are falling for propaganda, but to really be effective you also need to pay attention to what supports that belief. For instance, racism is often based on a perception of an unfair distribution of resources, which in turn is often based on very real social problems: housing shortages, unemployment, lack of community provision etc. Beginning to campaign around those issues could provide a point of unity for all those affected. This is just one example, but I hope you understand my point. In the course of struggles, it is amazing how people’s prejudices begin to drop away.

{it may be noted that our rulers rigourously avoid the study of causes for malfunctions of governance}

one needs not ask why US is not democratic but how/when/where it became whatever it is now.
we can’t have when w.o. where, what, and how. people may think that the US structure of governance and society started in philadelphia in 18th century by bunch of patricians for the benefit of other patricians, but it is not true.

enslavemnet and enserfment began at least 15T yrs ago and not in US in 18th century.
for vast number of immigrants or ‘settlers’, their enserfment continued from europe to redlands.
in short, interpersonal relations have remained structurally the same or similar. over millennia only cosmetic changes were introduced but institution are the same as they had been for at least 5T yrs. tnx

So, should we not address underlying social problems? Should we start chanting, “build more prisons, build more prisons”?

How do you honestly tackle an issue if you don’t address the underlying causes? How do you tackle crime or housing or education if you don’t address the amount of money going toward war/occupation? How do you not address corporate welfare?

“Rather than explain away reactionary views as the result of media propaganda, the left should listen carefully and respond intelligently.”

Is educating people about media propaganda unintelligent? If a person holds a certain belief because of media lies/distortions (or because “my pastor said so”), do you not try to explain that the basis for their belief is a lie? How can you address a concern that is based on a lie?

it is not the case with the hebrews; they converted to a judaic cult and have not lived to tell.
hebrews are gone; they are no more; thanks to their mad priests.
three mn euro-asians converts to judaism have also perished.
judeans have also suffered a shoah. is the fourth and final shoah far behind.
if it happens, it wld have been earned, says the devil of my own. tnx

I think Lichen is fundamentally misunderstanding some of the terms of discussion here. Being charitable, perhaps this is because this article was clearly written by British folks, to whom “working class” might have quite a different resonance to American ears, at least in common parlance.

In Britain surveys have shown a strong majority of people refer to themselves as “working class”, which roughly corresponds to the overhwelming proportion of the population that earns a wage to support themselves and their families. So the term is clearly not nonsense, neither Marxist or Trotskyist (in fact the tenor of the article is completely anti-Trotskyist in terms of strategy, as far as I can see.)

It is almost too banal a point to say it does not exclude students, children, the disabled, retirees, stay at home parents etc., most of whom will come from working class families. But clearly it needs to be said. It also does not follow that if you are a worker you are “poor”, as Lichen says. This patronising attitude exemplifies the problems some of those in progressive social movements have in relating to ordinary people.

The simple and correct point of this article, almost too banal to repeat, is this: to achieve positive social change you need a mass movement encompassing a majority (or at least large minority) of the population. Surely we must agree on this? The question that inevitably follows is how to build such a movement. Remember we want to create something that will win over as large a number of people as possible. The answer that seems to present itself is this: find out about the immediate problems facing the large majority of ordinary people, prove you can tackle them, win support; grow; tackle larger issues, and so on.

Sure, for students, the problems they are most immediately interested in might be the Iraq war or the plight of the Palestinians. Great, you’ve recruited some students who can do some good, positive work that can have a meaningful results and maybe lead to positive change. But for the vast majority of ordinary people (consult polling data, do a house-to-house survey, whatever, it will come up with the same result) the issues that matter most immediately are likely to be include such things as access to healthcare, the impact of crime, housing problems, unemployment, job insecurity.

If you are a trade unionist looking to organise your workplace, how do you go about convincing your workmates to sign up? Most often, you stress the individual and collective benefits of being in the union: job security, better pay and conditions, protection at work, mutual support etc. You don’t argue for people to join a union because of its solidarity work with Colombian unions, or its support for anti-war movements. The ability of unions to work in these areas is a direct result of having built a strong movement able to mobilise support around these issues, as well as the institutional, democratic and solidaristic framework to back it up. It is important work, of course, but it is a product of the union’s primary goal: to improve the working lives of its members.

We need to export that simple logic to progressive movements in general, if we are too grow. There are progressive answers to all the social problems I have listed, and we need to provide them.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1312/t/6850/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26951

President Barack Obama announced his plans to escalate U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including increasing the number of troops going to the region. This is bad news as it sinks the U.S. further into a quagmire in the “graveyard of Empires.”

On the positive side he also made some good statements on increasing diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the emphasis is clearly on military operations. For his full speech on Afghanistan-Pakistan policy see http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=1252. The military escalation will undercut diplomacy and development.

Please tell the president that you oppose escalation of the military conflict in Afghanistan.

According to class-psychology. The best americans are the lower-class americans, if u think about it, middle and upper class americans are even against any change and mode of living in this country. Why? coz they don’t need change they are ok, but poor people cry for a change

so what America needs is a political party of lower-class people. not the elitist and classist Clintonist Pelosi corporate democrats who sell themselves as “poor people party”

.

that’s the problem of US citizens, they hate bankers, they hate Federal Reserve, they hate expensive, high electrical bills, high telephone and internet bills, high medical fees, expensive private insurance, bu at the same time they hate welfare state-nationalist-capitalism and socialism. How can i help my fellow americans if they hate socialism and love bankers so much. Most American citizens cannot give up their Mcdonalds, their Wendies, their Duncan Hines cakes, their Pillsbury cakes, their Betty Crocker cakes, our culture and marriage with Pizza Hut, with Little Caesars, with Dominos. We have been bombarded by years of pizzas, burgers, and cakes.

Americans are like the wives who are beaten up by their repressive husbands but at the same time love them

,

Perhaps some Valium would help.

Furthermore, the assumption that whether a student graduates from college and is able to get a decent job has any bearing on their political views is blatantly false. And likewise, assuming that just because someone is poor that they will share any left political views is incredibly idiotic. That sort of inferiority complex, wishing your political base was made up of someone else is ridiculous and stupid. The very poor, however, are largely not; they realize how passe marxism is, and ‘left baggage’ is going to succeed just as well as similar trotskyist campaigns have in the past.

However, to bring about real social change we need more than one-off demonstrations. To have any chance of success, movements need to encourage a majority (or substantial minority) of ordinary people to take action.

The Gaza demonstrations did not attract a representative cross-section of British society. From what I observed, most of the demonstrators were either seasoned activists, students or young British muslims. Since only certain small sections of society were involved in campaigning against the assault on Gaza, the Government felt under little pressure to modify it’s pro-Israeli policies.

Had large numbers of ordinary working people shown that they were prepared to demonstrate, campaign and use their votes to show their opposition to Israeli actions, the Government would have been forced to reconsider it’s line.

This is not to suggest that working class people don’t care about international justice, but merely to point out that the Israel / Palestine issue is not a priority for most people. On the issues that people do care about most – crime, education, housing – the British Left has not mounted a significant campaign for some time.

The only way to make movements such as the Gaza campaign successful is to win the trust of ordinary people by mounting effective campaigns around the issues people prioritise.

The G20 demonstrations are slightly different from the Gaza protests, as the issues of job security, wages, debt and public services directly effect a large majority of British people. There is undoubtedly a huge amount of anger about corporate bailouts and job losses, but this cannot be turned into effective opposition merely through a five day anti-G20 carnival.

The Left is failing to organise sustained local or national resistance to job losses, house repossessions and attacks on public services. It has not built roots in communities and workplaces. As a consequence, very few working class people feel any kind of connection to the anti-G20 protests.

I was at yesterday’s demonstration. Along with the usual mixture of Left activists, there were large numbers of global justice campaigners and environmentalists. Although the trade unions were well represented on the platform, very few of the demonstrators came from the sectors of society most at risk of unemployment and job insecurity.

Building movements is more than a numbers game. Well over a million people demonstrated against the Iraq War, but failed to prevent Britain’s involvement in the US-led attack. Movements must create meaningful and durable links with large sections of the population if they are to stand any chance of success.

P.S. Michael, we posted a reply to an earlier comment of yours but it has only just appeared. You might need to scroll up to find it.

so far as i can fathom, no ism can be defined. but a person may think that she can define, let’s say, fascism; and only her definition being valid; all others either false or incomplete.

when defining an ideology, each word used to define it, must also be defined; then, words in the second definition must also be defined.
it’s a process that never ends.
yet leads to rancour/frustration, etc. it seems best to acknowledge that everybody is right by own definition.
or just leave an ism undefined and let each person struggle with understanding or defining, let’s say, a constitution, fascism, etc.

but we do know much of what marxists, fascist, theocrats, capitalists, et al have done.
so that shl be listed first in an descriptive/actional lingo.
natch, we can expect that people wld agree with the fact that US had A-bombed hiroshima and nagasaki but every cell in her body wld strongly rebel if she wld not rationalize it.
the rationalization be identified in her bodymind with the justification.
all we can do is to be patient and point out to such thinker that a rationalization is not a justification. it might help.

let’s face the fact that for millenia we have been taught how not to think.
the laguage in daily use is not our enemy but a great tool. language is OK.
and one does not need schooling of any kind to use the language properly. it is schooled priests, politicians, illuminaty who regularly butcher the langauge.
it is also essential we use the english that a person on street uses; not as obama, et al. more cld be said. tnx

There can be an appeciation for various isms without simply adapting them as if “there is on the one hand capitalism, and on the other socialism”. This need not be about a simple ideological divide. Our problems are not solved, as we’ve seen by the adaption of one ideology over another.

DB, it’s hard to take you seriously when you say we have plenty of models and plans, when the only one you seem to want to run with is Marxism (whatever that means).

Stripped of its “ism” there are fundamental issues which need to be addressed. Most are based on relationships, common wealth, access to the commons, and economic sustainability. But the real struggle is with human nature. The desire to plunder is so instilled in “our” DNA that it cannot be ignored.

Neither Socialism nor Capitalism are real. These are simply labels we use to sidestep the real problem(s).

Some of you suggest community action. I agree, but that is difficult in a nation that has demonized the poor, homeless, and those without health care. It might open an opportunity now that some previously upper middle class folks have lost some of their 401Ks. This might be a now or never time.

Maxwell Black is right about going to hear Mickey Z on April 25. That is a good start but after the rhetoric, action will be necessary. One starting point I have been pushing for is “Single Payer” – NOT “health care reform” which is just another way of continuing to feed money to the insurance companies.

Most of all, people should be reminded that Wall Street is just doing what Wall Street does. The anger of the masses should be directed at the Congress.

About “workers” – most low and moderate income people ARE workers. The issue is that they are not fairly compensated for their work but you all knew that.