Re: <nettime> The Left Needs a New Strategy

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:09 AM Dmytri Kleiner <dk@telekommunisten.net> wrote:

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- Some swipes at outdated leftist and dreamy anarchists.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: