Politics. It stinks.
Aug. 13th, 2010 08:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vostoklakeOne of the motivations for my decision to step out (temporarily?) of political activism is that the life of the radical political activist, in the current space-time juncture, is unremittingly negative. There are no significant "wins" for our side, where we are. At best, our activity turns terrible crushing defeats into mild, tolerable defeats - or we can vicariously "get off" in things that happen in exotic locales like Venezuela or Nepal. I can see why people sell out to liberal/reformist politics - because they win sometimes, in their own terms - whereas such as me can always see why no win which the current system allows can ever be "good enough". Even good radicals "emotionally piggyback" on liberal victories - even though I had absolutely no illusions that Barack Obama was going to be anything other than he has proved to be, I got drunk when he beat the crazy old guy and that snowbilly grifter.
But on the other hand, I'd rather be me than actual liberals who do have illusions that the extremely mild "centre-left wing of global capitalism" whom they elect will be anything different. I shake my head at the people who thought that the Obama presidency was going to turn all of America into San Francisco overnight. And I am actually scared by the people who blame it on his "lack of nerve" - i.e. the idea that he wants to be some kind of progressive superhero but is too "afraid" to just shove it down the throats of his political adversaries. Some guy even said that he wished that George W Bush was a liberal - in other words, we want our own mean, callous, emotionally blackmailing borderline sociopath who cows and intimidates his enemies! Such a narrative - that political victory is based on being "tougher" than "the other guy" - is what any Marxist would recognize as sheer voluntarism, and what any psychologist would see as a naïve fantasy wish-fulfilment attitude, as if politics were a TV cop show. (And when a strong leader on the left does arise - like the guy in my icon - the good liberals are always happy to believe the worst propaganda lies against him. Hugo Chávez does some dodgy deals with people like Putin and Ahmedinejad to get things done, and even intimidates his own side sometimes, but I thought you preferred that to the hands-clean constitutional scholar?)
Only class forces win the day, and the good liberals were more than happy to see the unions beaten and disintegrated (because working class people are sometimes prejudiced, not like us, you see?) And then the good liberals are amazed that the "good guys" don't win automatically, that you need organisation to win in politics, and Beautiful Souls who prefer their precious "individuality" and "thinking for themselves" never win unless their cause is bankrolled by some real serious class force. (You think Vaclav Havel got to be president of the Czech Republic by the force of his ideas? No, because the private capitalists who took over from the Stalinist bureaucracy wanted a figurehead who looked good on TV.) There is some possibility that professional middle-class forces could get organised and wield serious power - especially in the Internet era - but they're just not doing so. They're watching politics like any other spectator sport and bitching about why their team seems to have no "muscle". When they cheered on while that muscle was atomised in the 70's and 80's, of course.
But on the other hand, I'd rather be me than actual liberals who do have illusions that the extremely mild "centre-left wing of global capitalism" whom they elect will be anything different. I shake my head at the people who thought that the Obama presidency was going to turn all of America into San Francisco overnight. And I am actually scared by the people who blame it on his "lack of nerve" - i.e. the idea that he wants to be some kind of progressive superhero but is too "afraid" to just shove it down the throats of his political adversaries. Some guy even said that he wished that George W Bush was a liberal - in other words, we want our own mean, callous, emotionally blackmailing borderline sociopath who cows and intimidates his enemies! Such a narrative - that political victory is based on being "tougher" than "the other guy" - is what any Marxist would recognize as sheer voluntarism, and what any psychologist would see as a naïve fantasy wish-fulfilment attitude, as if politics were a TV cop show. (And when a strong leader on the left does arise - like the guy in my icon - the good liberals are always happy to believe the worst propaganda lies against him. Hugo Chávez does some dodgy deals with people like Putin and Ahmedinejad to get things done, and even intimidates his own side sometimes, but I thought you preferred that to the hands-clean constitutional scholar?)
Only class forces win the day, and the good liberals were more than happy to see the unions beaten and disintegrated (because working class people are sometimes prejudiced, not like us, you see?) And then the good liberals are amazed that the "good guys" don't win automatically, that you need organisation to win in politics, and Beautiful Souls who prefer their precious "individuality" and "thinking for themselves" never win unless their cause is bankrolled by some real serious class force. (You think Vaclav Havel got to be president of the Czech Republic by the force of his ideas? No, because the private capitalists who took over from the Stalinist bureaucracy wanted a figurehead who looked good on TV.) There is some possibility that professional middle-class forces could get organised and wield serious power - especially in the Internet era - but they're just not doing so. They're watching politics like any other spectator sport and bitching about why their team seems to have no "muscle". When they cheered on while that muscle was atomised in the 70's and 80's, of course.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-08-14 12:50 pm (UTC)