[Marxism] A Retort on the Left and Elections

[Timothy Barr]

Einde O'Callaghan wrote: 

I'm making this comment on the style of discussion, not on the merits or 
not of the underlying positions of the two protagonists.

_____________

To bring this argument out to a larger point, the distinction between style
of argument and substance is sometimes helpful in an analysis. But
ultimately, as the classical rhetoricians knew, this distinction is
artificial. All that matters is the message the argument gets, not the
underlying position. We must adapt to communicate this underlying position.
The only under- we want is understood. 

So back to the debate: Should the "Left" (pretending this is some
discernible force, position, whatever), engage with those who only partially
represent their interests? I would proffer this: Yes, on the condition that
they do so strategically, on the condition that they do so while
communicating the fact that though they are cooperating, their aim is not
convergence/cooperation. An action can be interpreted however its audience
is able to interpret it. The Left must make this action impossible to
interpret as other than positive construction under a failing capitalism.
Yet, it must also not appear like it is bluffing: if the Left chooses to
engage with the Dems or whomever, it cannot be out of despair or
resignation. They must actually support what they are supporting. Bluffing
with a big chest is easy to spot. Concession is not the same as negotiation,
and neither requires the other. 
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/timjim7%40comcast.net
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.21/2252 - Release Date: 07/21/09
05:58:00