Re: <nettime> The Left Needs a New Strategy

[Dmytri Kleiner <dk@telekommunisten.net>]

So, I don't buy my ink by the barrel, so can't respond to everything in 
this gish gallop, but I'll share my notes.

- I'm the real narcissist, possibly crazy.
- Some boilerplate stuff about "us and them purism"
- I'm a tankie LARPer with "heroes"
- Some filler words about being more than "against capitalism"
- Broadly cast insults towards non-Bernie supporters, nihilistic street 
fighters, confused clowns or paleo-Communist orgmen and women.
- US-centric filler words about what the right is doing.
- Yet more filler words about aesthetics.
- Some swipes at outdated leftist and dreamy anarchists.
- Some grandstanding about self-declared enemies and off duty cops with 
guns.
- Comments on Capitol rioters as strategy

I mean, the blovial density is impressive, but there is not much in the 
above that I care to respond to, as it bears little relation to what I 
wrote, which is fair enough, my text had little to do with what you 
wrote. So maybe it was useful for you write this out, maybe others will 
find it useful.

In terms of strategy, you note:

- Embracing Black, Brown and Indigenous leadership

Now this is really key, I would add embracing the leadership of the 
young, the queer and the formerly colonized to this.

So what does embracing this leadership look like?

For one, it must start with the practices promoted by Freire, McAlevey 
and others. Which means listening to the problems as they describe them, 
deferring to their organic leadership, and engaging dialogically, not 
telling then what you think they should know and trying to improving 
them by depositing your knowledge into their empty vessel.

The key is not being a third party. The strategy you focus on is not 
only US-centric, tho many Black, Brown and Indigenous people who are 
harmed by the US are not in the US, but it's entirely propagandist in 
Freire's words, it's all about explaining and convincing. It's a 
disengaged, third party approach and that is doomed to fail.

Also, in my experience, the black, brown,and indigenous people either in 
the US or outside are far less likely to call me a tankie larper, so it 
doesn't feel to me like you are really listening to them or even know 
their point of view.

You believe what they really need to do is listen to you. This is not 
going to happen, so it's not much of a strategy.


- Political strategy is not a set of talking points

Indeed it's not, yet all you offer is (lengthy and meandering) talking 
points.

Political strategy requires what McAlevey (drawing on Mills) calls a 
power structure analysis, how are you going to force the opposition to 
give you what you want?

You mention the DSA in what I think was intended to be a positive light, 
hard to tell given the proximity to various denouncements, so here is a 
McAlevey Study Guide published by the DSA:

https://fund.dsausa.org/files/sites/10/2019/07/No-Shortcuts-Discussion-Guide-for-DSA-Fund-Website.pdf

She distinguishes between the liberal and progressive theories of power 
and endorses a proletarian theory instead. She explains why the liberal 
and progressive practices, what she refers to as advocacy and 
mobilizing, are shallow and ineffective, and calls for deep organizing, 
which is rooted in the leadership and efforts of the workers themselves. 
She strongly condemns third-party strategies rooted in explaining, 
convincing, advocating, mobilizing, negotiating on behalf of, etc. 
Freire would obviously approve.

This is a real strategy, not a set of talking points. It is the strategy 
of the left, and it's not new.

- Convince well over 50% of society to make a change of course

So there it is, "convincing."

Your theory of power is propagandist in Freire's terms, not dialogical, 
and your strategy is not a strategy, in McAlevey's terms, because it is 
not rooted in the efforts of the workers themselves.

But yes, it sure would be great if over 50% of society would believe 
stuff like healthcare should be free, housing is a right, education 
should be available to all, etc.

But wait! Billions of people already do, yeah some in the US, but 
billions in the global left, in China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, quite 
a few in Bolivia and Venezuala, and millions more in movements like MST 
and unions like NUMSA, they already believe what you want to convince 
people of! What's more, they have even won power and put much if it into 
practice. This is why the liberal and progressive sections of the US 
left are trained to hate and denounce them.

Wouldn't it be great if the US left would join and work with the global 
left rather than than throwing around cartoonish 
cold-war-and-nazi-propaganda and rejecting and denouncing them at every 
turn?

Now, given what João Pedro wrote, quoted in a different response here, 
about the rise of China and the new global possibilities this is opening 
up, you might think that this should be taken into account in any talk 
of, you know, a "strategy" for the left?

Best,


On 2021-01-11 23:18, Brian Holmes wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:57 PM Dmytri Kleiner

> The point is to contribute to what's actually happening.

--
Dmytri Kleiner
@dmytri
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: