[Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream

[Joaquin Bustelo]

Gary writes: "The horse is of course not a horse and besides nothing is at
all dead.  The criticism of Obama is alive and desperately needed.  It does
not preclude action on evictions etc.  Indeed it is a necessary but not
sufficient precursor to action." 

I thank Gary for his very clear expression of one of the central points of
disagreement. 

The election of Obama has been tremendously popular with working people in
the United States, especially the most conscious political layers (talking
now not about a thin crust of radicals, but in terms of millions and tens of
millions), disproportionately Blacks and Latinos. This for at least two
reasons: 

a) It is viewed as punishment for a particularly hated president and not
just him, but his party.

b) It is viewed as a blow to racism and white supremacy. 

Gary says "criticism of Obama ... is desperately needed." In other posts he
speaks of a "howl" (I wonder if the allusion to Ginsberg was conscious) and
expressing "rage" (ditto for the Weather Underground).

I do believe that material that patiently explains things like the nature of
the two party system, and that even uses some of the appointments to the new
administration to highlight the fundamental continuity of U.S. imperialism
and the limits of "change" in this framework are necessary and useful. But
we should understand that at this point, such material is aimed at a narrow
layer of most advanced elements, and should be pitched in such a way as to
avoid antagonizing, and even attract, those who supported Obama and
identified with his victory but recognized that this was not the be-all and
end-all of "change," viewing it only as a step.

Some examples of material that I think strikes the right tone and stance,
that I believe is useful, are Solidarity's statement about Obama's dual
mandate;  the Freedom Road statement about Obama's election (despite my
secondary disagreement with how they formulated demands in the form of Bill
Fletcher's detailed road-map for Obama's first 100 days -- my disagreement
was about whether this was the more effective form and style of
presentation, not the main thrust), as well as the general approach of the
articles in the ISO's Socialist Worker. 

That said, I disagree *completely* that "criticism of Obama ... is a
necessary ... precursor to action." On the contrary, I believe that ACTION
is the necessary precursor to more widespread acceptance of the criticism of
Obama. There is no sense in now needlessly alienating people by strident,
denunciatory articles WHICH THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND and will be an obstacle
to their joining together with socialists around concrete issues. If we
allow protests and movements around specific issues to be colored with an
anti-Obama tinge, as was generally true of protests until now in relation to
Bush,  they will fail, because it is largely around Obama-ists that they
will find their constituency. 

This is a materialist approach. It is through engagement in action, in
actual social movement, that masses of people can come to more generalized
and radical conclusions, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. START by convincing them
to take part in or support protests against raids and deportations,
foreclosures and evictions, or some other concrete issue -- not by trying to
convince them that Obama WILL betray their hopes for change in general. On
the contrary, I would say we should even consciously echo and even USE
Obama's rhetoric and promises from the campaign -- not just about hope and
change, but also about not scapegoating immigrants, about helping main
street and not wall street, and so on. At any rate, the stance of the
protest movements should be at this stage that these are not protests
AGAINST Obama, but rather around the specific issues they target -- whether
they be immigration, housing or whatever.

*  *  *

One last and somewhat separate point: "The absolutely cold hard truth is
that by appointing Hilary Clinton, Obama has passed a death sentence on
Arabs & Afghanis and others who oppose American Imperialism. No metaphor
about dead horses or sleight of word can wipe that away."

Can Gary name even one U.S. politician whose nomination for secretary of
state would pass the giggle test in U.S. ruling class political circles
about whom the same could not be said? Aren't we being a little bit
melodramatic and disingenuous, and skipping quite a few necessary linkages,
when we put things in this fashion, as if some OTHER plausible secretary of
state would likely be different in this regard, but Obama chose the one MOST
identified with imperialist crimes?

In choosing Mrs. Clinton, Obama did NOT "pass a death sentence" against
ANYONE. The coming dead were sentenced long ago. At most, we could say this
appointment does nothing to help those who are victims of imperialism. It is
an appointment that changes nothing. And, again, whatever tactical
adjustments there may be in the stance of the U.S. Government in pursuing
the interests of the United States as the world's uniquely pre-eminent
imperialist power in the cultural, military, political, economic and
monetary spheres will be Obama's adjustments, not Clinton's.

Such exaggerated formulations, especially with Obama actually taking the
reigns of government still a month and a half away, easily create the
impression that in the universe of bourgeois politicians, Obama is an
especially odious and execrable example. 

I understand why some radicals feel that way: he is a much harder target to
hit than a Bush or a Palin, someone who, instead of instantly generating
intense dislike among the more conscious working people, instead is
attractive to the big majority of them. I believe that the exaggerated
violence of some of the verbal Obama-bashing on this list is, as some have
already suggested, a sectarian reaction to this phenomenon.

Joaquin