Nando writes:

<blockquote>"But even if we were just “talking to ourselves” (assuming for the moment that was literally true), there is value in being clear if only to ourselves — because it is always true, that being revolutionary is always a controversial stand within a revolutionary movement, just as being truly against the war remains a controversial stand within the antiwar movement.

"That is the nature of it, it is always a fight against the dominant logic — including within our own gathered forces."</blockquote>



This should be the subject of a pamphlet; this is where revolution and psychology begin to mix with alchemical potential. Bravo!

<blockquote>The plans made by “Progresssives for Obama” are not for alliance with the liberal grassroots (which we all support), they are for subordination to the liberal ruling class.</blockquote>

If we didn't organize on our own platform and didn't build own own organizations, both different from the Dems, in these electoral efforts, you might have a point. But we do put out our our platform and we do build our own groups, and thus gain strength.

You can boycott or abstain, as you like. I think it's self-marginalizing to do so, but that's your business. If you have a better approach building both revolutionary and mass organizations, we'll learn soon enough. Put up a blog and report yours progress to us. I'm all ears.

[personal attack removed. argue substance.]

On Obama - the president with a half brother in Africa who had another wife added to his "Heram", and some say had a family relation with previous president vice president empire i only say what a friend - an "Afro American" friend told me.

This Republican had made so much shit that only a Negro can clean it. Positive he does well, it's his job, negative he does, no resolution for imperialist capitalism crisis, that is all his fault too! bad black nothing close to Martin Luther King or, Malcolm X for that matter.

But regarding having a black as the last Joker in election i can only say that there are women jokers too and I'll get to that next time i get a chance from work. Just remember this:

Why Rice was Bush's justifier?

What was progressive for Republican candidate to have a vice president woman and, another woman who did not complain a bit about her husband's faithlessness in marriage (I wish Anita Hill could slam her face too!)

Why New Alliance Party and Workers World Party had one thing in common in their candidates that was Black Woman?

There are more Aces. Woman, black, Wasn't Margaret Thacher a woman? Don't we have a woman in Germany right regime and all that?

Obama is just a collateral damage piece of capitalist system. woman - man - straight - gay - black - yellow - brown - whatever, we need revolution against the system. But as a black president?
I prefer Oreo Cookie.

I am not green red,but as a friend of his could not resist the temptation to add a few words of mine; .....the system is in great crisis; in reality we are facing a depression, ....if only they could utter the word....economically the country is awash in a mess; banking crisis; TARP already paid, back fired; lending mismanagemet and continuation of real estate crisis (read melting point); persistence of unemployment ; officially 10 percent ; unofficially close to 20 percent; in this environment, rabid racism raises its ugly head in the form of libertarianism, and "tea-bagging"; fear of immigrants soon to dislodge numerical superiority of the white population has wrecked havoc , and the results are for the next few decades predictable. Rise of hard right (Republicans) versus the xenophobic right (tea baggers)....continued dominance and monopolization of the country, and of course right now there is no more shame in contributing to financial campaigns of the friends of corporate America.....limits on finance contributions have been lifted..this is the only country to my knowledge where these things happen so blatantly in the daylight.

Obama has been used once and I doubt he has much use for the establishment once his term is over. He supposedly stemmed the free fall and has apparently outlived his usefulness.

Time for new names and figures and the GRAND OLD GAME.....stay tuned

Nando writes:



<blockquote>"And if you don’t like my agitational model, why not propose another one?"
</blockquote>


The emotionalism of Nando's piece "They expect us to eat shit" is worth considering. In "Into Election Mudslides" Nando argues that his agitational model has a pedagogical purpose.

But what does this style teach?

Nando's piece, if I read it right, is directed at revolutionaries and progressives who advocate working in the electoral arena and voting Democrat when there are no viable alternatives.

Nando opposes these tactics.

That is reasonable enough.

But the tone of the piece, the emotionalism of it, which Nando suggests is inseparable from its content treats Bill Fletcher and others who hold similar views as enemies.

There is an unstated strategic assumption here. During the Bolshevik's "third period" the line that the Social Democrats were in fact Social Fascists and were worse than the Nazis was advanced.

this is a strategy since it is an argument about friends and allies.

Nando is wittingly or unwittingly advancing a similar strategy and this strategy is taken up in many comments where Bill Fletcher is called a "liar" and a "deceiver."

Is this a conscious strategy or is it just spontaneously emerging from the emotionalism? I don't know. But in the comments that follow the initial piece Nando assumes the posture of a ideological bully.

In initial comments responding to TNL Nando writes:

<blockquote>“Don’t think (or imply) I’m arguing “After Palin, us.” Don’t think i’m unaware of our radical weakness. Don’t imply we have nothing to offer but blog space. Don’t imply that anyone suffers from indifference to long-term fascist dangers. “</blockquote>

All the "don't imply" this and "don't imply" thats without any example, evidence, or argument supplied to explain why TNL's assertions or "implications" are wrong. This hyper dogmatic posture that attempts to short circuit criticism strikes me as intellectual bullying and reminiscent of the worst features of "democratic centralism."

Perhaps this is not the intention but, the piece definitely has a strategy to treat people like Fletcher as enemies when they could just as easily be construed as allies with whom there are disagreements around electoral politics but with whom there are lots of areas of unity like opposition to the war.

Up until now, Kasama has been characterized by a generally thoughtful approach and respectful treatment of ideological opponents. Mike in particular has been a champion of this, supporting, for example, engagement with -- rather than denunciation of -- the "anti-anti-imperialist" Platypus group. The idea seems to be that reasoned debate is better than angry rhetoric.

"They expect us to eat shit" represents a sharp change from this. The profanity in the title and throughout the piece is a strong indicator of its lack of reasoned arguments. Instead it is a childish emotional rant, pure and simple. Participation in bourgeois elections should be opposed because anyone who supports it is a "liar," "deceiver," and "part of the problem." And they should "fuck off."

Mike has been asked multiple times in multiple ways by multiple people what gives him the moral high ground from which to hurl this level of invective at others. What is his alternative?

The best he has been able to come up with is that "we should embrace 'thisness.'"

Which doesn't, in the end, sound all that different from Carl's Zen Buddhism.

This is a disappointing departure from the tone which has characterized discussion on Kasama in the past, and it is particularly disappointing to see it coming from the person who (until now) has been the greatest exponent of a reasoned tone.

By the way, speaking of Zen Buddhism, here are a couple of koans:

Revolutionary communism is to bourgeois democracy as pole is to _______

A. Eggplant
B. Hieronymous Bosch
C. Mudslide
D. Albuquerque

Marxism is to dogmatism as ecosystem is to _______

A. Tuberculosis
B. Layer cake
C. Antifreeze
D. Transubstantiation

Once again, Obama is not on the ballot this round. But here in PA, we have a Tea Party/GPO rightist vs a Clinton liberal running for Senate, and it matter to us that the Teabagger lose. We also have two local union guys--one a steelworker, the other a pipefitter, --running against the Tea Party candidates for two statehouse seats. So we're working against Toomey and for the other two. As for our Blue Dog Altmire, he's on his own, as far as we're concerned. Mainly, we work to build the size and strength of our own PDA group while using these tactics.

In other words, start by looking at the options concretely, then work to build the options that can make for better choices in the future. Thoughout it all project your own platform.

Is it really so bad to vote AGAINST a local Teabagger and not necessarily endorse a Democrat. In Kansas local elections we have some real scumbags running for Republicans.We don't expect any progressive change from the Democrats. We haven't been disappointed because some of us never expected them to do us any real favors. But there are some despicable people who run for office and don't deserve it. We can always vote for a third party just to oppose some bozo who clearly doesn't care what happens to working people with crack-pot ideas.
I don't think voting is counter-revolutionary as long as the voter understands this is not really the answer to societies problems.

I live in Pennsylvania as well and have been following the senate race with some interest. Election year TV advertising- while lowest common denomenator- reveals a lot. Here is an ad by the Clinton liberal campaign against the Tea Party candidate in the race Carl refers to above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kaiiJuz8a0

That's why you have to put out your own independent line, as we do in PDA, especially when you're voting AGAINST one candidate on a 'lesser evil' basis. We also oppose Stestak on the wars, but in that case, he's no different from Toomey. Still, given the range of differences between the two, it's pretty much a no brainer. Again, the main point is to build your organization's strengthen by engaging in these efforts, so we can accumulate the forces to eventually run our own candidates, who'll have a decent shot at taking office.

That’s why you have to put out your own independent line, as we do in PDA, especially when you’re voting AGAINST one candidate on a ‘lesser evil’ basis. We also oppose Stestak on the wars, but in that case, he’s no different from Toomey. Still, given the range of differences between the two, it’s pretty much a no brainer. Again, the main point is to build your organization’s strengthen by engaging in these efforts, so we can accumulate the forces to eventually run our own candidates, who’ll have a decent shot at taking office.

---

Is this the same PDA that has the spineless Dennis Kucinich on its board? Who caved in to Obama on health care and to Kerry on the war in Iraq? The same PDA that has Medea Benjamin, who stabbed the Green Party in the back before settling in nicely into the DP? The same PDA that includes John Conyers, who had impeachment activists, including Cindy Sheehan, arrested?

I think the likelihood that this outfit is the embryo of a new left party in the same way that the Lincoln wing of the Whigs became the Republican Party is a sick joke. All of the people on the PDA board strike me as sclerotic encrustations on the body politic who would be deeply resistant to a genuine challenge to the 2-party system.

To be fair- Pat Toomey's campaign is running ad's accusing Joe Sestak of being a "job killer" and are accusing this Clinton liberal of representing the interest's of millionairs and billionaires.

While both campaign ad's are lowest common denominator-, ironically they are both correct. Both canditates kill jobs, and represent the interests of the wealthy and the ruling class. The base appeal of both campaigns are all but identical, to the point of mirroring one another.

This is significant- it reveals a popular sentiment- a general distrust of the wealthy. This sentiment exist's (on both left and right of the mainstream political spectrum). The question is how do we coming from a radical and revolutionary perspective tap into that? I am not opposed on principle to a strategy that involves tactics which have a component of engaging in some fashion of electoral politics to do so. No such strategy exists or has been articulated as of right now. Dialouge here may lead to it and might inform a future strategy, and the conversation is worth having.

On another note- the Tea Party (and Glen Beck and the likes) insist that they are independant of the Republican Party. Pat Toomey is a well established figure within the Republican Party, and also a Tea Party candidate. In other words- while the Tea Party movement is a groundswell which is dissatisfied with some aspects of the Republican Party- they are not in fact divorced from it and are a cutting edge component of it. Carl insist's that the PDA is independent of the Democratic Party. I for one am extremely skeptical about this claim. I would even argue that the PDA is a component of the Democratic Party. The capital "D" in the three letter abbreviation and it's subsequent definition "Democrat" speaks for itself. If it doesen't here, Carl will and does.

To put things in very provacative terms; The Tea Party claims to be independant of the Republicans- they are not, and they lead that party more to the right. PDA claims to be independant of the Democrats, they are not and have far less influence in the DP and have not and will not lead that party to the left.

The Democratic Senetorial Campaign (ad posted above) &amp; PDA have at least one thing in common- they both are campaigning for Joe Sestak. I visit PDA's website a few times each month. Admittedly am not a regular and do not follow posts there in any regular way. Am unaware of any criticism PDA or the local group Carl is involved with that criticises this horriable ad. Is there one?

I have my own criticism's with the ad's and the entire campaign. It's extremely narrow and nationalist. It is not confined to the 30 second TV ad broadcast ad nauseam either. It includeds (fossil) Arlen Spector making multiple public appearances claiming Pat Toomey is being financed by "chinese communist's". Is this really the basis we should actively seek to mobilize people to vote and participate in politics around?

Here in PA- I characterize things a little differtly than Carl. We have a Tea Party GOP rightest who represents the interests of billionairs VS. a Navy Admiral who has broken almost every promise he made to progressive's last mid term electiion, coincidentally also representing the interests of billionaires.

Carl suggest's that we look at the options. I agree that we should, and we really should look at the options.

There is a choice here. Do you want 6? or would you prefer a half dozen?

PDA is organizationally and financially independent of the Democratic Party. It has its own platform, some of which overlaps with the Dem platform, but much does not. It has a range of views within it, and with any number of ongoing debates. If you like, check out its site, http://pdamerica.org In Congress, it works with the Progressive Caucus, and opposes the Blue Dogs.

I don't know if that particular ad has been criticized by us; check out http://beavercountyblue.org But we have no problem criticizing any Democrat, especially Blue Dogs and DLC types.

Finally, despite Proyect, we do like Dennis Kucinich. We got him on the presidential ballot here. He was actually our first choice. Kucinich is rather popular with a wide range of rank-and-file workers around here as well. And we like Medea Benjamin and the work she does with Code Pink and Global Exchange, too. If you can't see these two people as allies, despite differences, you're in an alternate universe from us.

When it comes to US electioneering, American nationalist demagoguery and imperial chauvinism are the stock and trade.

They ultimately boil down to coded racist appeals about how "foreigners are stealing our jobs" or "illegal immigrants are stealing our jobs."

Both Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans are guilty of this.

This season's political campaign ads have demonstrated this in spades--so much so that some people are even having contests to choose the most racist political ad of the season, or spoof existing ones!

Cuéntame: Award Winner for Most Racist Ad 2010
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2010/10/29/cuentame-racist-ad/

Announcing The “Evil Chinese Professor” Meme-Off
http://www.reappropriate.com/2010/10/25/announcing-the-evil-chinese-professor-meme-off/

What's even more comical, however, is how the so-called American Left (sic) will offer the most pathetically contrived rationalizations for supporting the Democratic Party--even as they mouth radical sounding verbiage about supporting communism, socialism, and most laughably, workers' internationalism.

This type of doublespeak is not that surprising though.

Behind its political mask, the (imperial) American Left is but the left wing of the American Empire.