By: saulo colon

saulo colon — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 06:30:50 +0000

Gihan, this piece helps to explore some larger questions on diverse conceptions (as well as the experiences that led to their formulation) concerning power, the capitalist state and hegemony or what you call “organizing consensus”. I just want to pose some questions that attempt to flesh out some differences while also seeking clarification which will make the debate sharper y hopefully advance it as well. Several times you mention the need for a (transitional?) Formation that can fight the seductions of representative power and maintain the discipline critical to building democracy within the capitalist context of mass poverty and extreme profit, but also to divide labor for a cohesive strategy. And you suggest that this may mean an inside outside (of the Left not Dems!) tactic. So, if I understand and articulate correctly, how do you see this developing without some kind of party or organization that is mass oriented and left unifying (in order to push that anti-corporate sentiment into anti capitalism and then pro socialism)? You don’t give examples but I wonder what u think about the new anticapitalist party in France that seems to be rooted in Left orgs and the social movements? The right seems to organize itself independently of the republican party in order to manipulate it, how would your strategy allow us to do same since Dems seem to block any type of intervention that is not prefigured by them (DLC etc)? Your distinction between Obama movement and government implies diverging interests between electorate and elites but his candidacy itself suggests convergence of contradictory interests of capital and people.Are their lessons we can take from Jesse Jackson campaigns in 80s on this? You do say some recent protests against banks are instructive but we should also look at earlier history of bank protests which were pivotal in stimulating comunity reinvestment act but simultaneously delegitimized the Great Society/state programs helping it go from war against poverty to war on poor (drugs). This populism led to crises of legitimacy that then fueled the reagan rightwing. and as we know the revolution was in the air and not on the ground. That moment should be instructive to us on role of the state but also because of the rightward pull of populism which I think (from a latin american view) obama represents. I agree iowa was an opening but its the lack of a concrete political alternative that is anti-systemic but based on “visions y values” that fails to disarticulate the pull to white right. I ask you: who isn’t pushing Obama? The strategically placed forces? Who exactly is that cause I am not sure if you mean progressive elites or grassroots poor. It aint codepink, they gave legitimacy to afghanistan talk before he gave it! whats been coopted may be the “sense of the possible” and when what’s possible is no longer common sense nor consensus then whats usual usually returns with a vengeance. Our inability to match the militancy and morality of the irrational right on healthcare points not to fragmentation but, considering our recent left unity work, the influence of opposing notions on how to build the power critical to opposing power rule. The point here isn’t that we need to try to convince others but that we need to jump into the mud and decide to push and pull together so that once we get to land we can see how close the horizon is then. Lets build the structure needed to then develop that division of labor. But as Fletcher said let’s understand the impact that funding has on our thinking and doing, but as Terry suggests let’s experiment and see how it goes. What’s the worse that could happen? Let’s not play the game, let’s change the game!

Comments on: GIHAN PERERA: Get in the Game

By: saulo colon