MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 2 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Hits of the Day
“Hegemony How-To”: Rethinking Activism and Embracing Power
By A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/19/2017 - 10:46am |In the tradition of Saul Alinsky and Antonio Gramsci, Smucker points out that “knowledge of what is wrong with a social system and knowledge of how to change the system are two completely different categories of knowledge.”
URL:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/hegemony-how-to-rethinking-activism-and-embracing-power/
- Add new comment
- 2955 reads
Comments
This is a synopsis review that touches intelligently, and in many ways, on a subject much discussed here at Dagblog; How the hell do we ever [constructively] win. Well worth a quick read, IMO.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/19/2017 - 10:46am
Not too impressed personally. OWS should have been more open to alliances, have a clearer positive message, not been so power-averse? That's the take-away?
I think OWS was a resounding success for such a small movement with no mainstream support, with the main progressive institution - the Democratic party - actively trying to shut it down. I think the later direction, most recently Sanders' campaign, was almost successful, and shows the way forward. To wit, we need to work within or through, rather than against, existing institutions, where the protections afforded those institutions (i.e. the FBI and DHS aren't going to designate the Democratic party a terrorist organization and treat it accordingly) can help the fragile progressive movement grow. In other words, I think the lessons have been learned, and they aren't necessarily the lessons laid out in the article.
But maybe I'm mistaken. What was it you liked about the article?
by Obey on Fri, 05/19/2017 - 3:08pm
I mostly agree with you except I don’t have a clue how to measure the success of OWS, which I was fine with watching from the sidelines but didn’t support in any tangible way and don’t know how I could have anyway and I don’t know anyone who did. I also don’t know of any tangible results of the OWS movement. Ideas were thrown at the Overton Window and this a good thing I think even if they are lying semi-dormant now but still alive and maybe ready to be awakened again stronger and hopefully more refined. Maybe Sanders is the second coming of OWS that proves your point but also that of the book; there must be an organization with a leader and an articulated direction. I agreed in spirit with OWS. I voted for Sanders.
The author and reviewer both praise OWS and both talk about lessons learned. They may or may not be Sanders supporters, that is not exactly the point as I see it or at least the one I intended to make about the review. I noted how the subject of the review in which the reviewer adds his own 2 cents covers the very same questions about that movement as were discussed and argued at length here at Dag about what lessons should be learned by Democrats who want the Democratic Party to win but also want it to be a Party that actually is as much as possible what it claims to be, what we want it to be, but also what “purity price” we should be willing to pay to win and who should be invited in, or not drummed out, so as to actually have a chance to win some amount some of the time when the decision is decided by numbers. I thought it was interesting coming from a long time activist who was involved in OWS and who had a history of activism, an opinion on how much it has accomplished and how it might expand to accomplish more and because I tend toward his ideas of accepting a little Venn overlap of other people’s ideas with my own. Except of course, when they have some single belief or position that crosses my red lines but its gettin to where a feller caint hardly move without trippin' over someone's.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 05/20/2017 - 12:38am
A couple of points regarding the question of the 'purity price' we should be willing to pay. I'm a big believer in the idea of a big-tent resistance movement against the Republican takeover of government. But there are also ways in which more, not less, purity can create a stronger and, paradoxically, broader movement.
One way, in my opinion, is the idea of resistance to corporate money. It gives you a seemingly big disadvantage in financing, but as shown by Sanders, a lot of that can be made up by the increased willingness of many smaller donors to come out of the woodwork. And it creates real enthusiasm for the candidates, who are more believably accountable to voters rather than to big money corporate sponsors. Sanders, to me, was a proof of concept for that idea. Now, many smaller organizations, offshoots of the Sanders campaign, not only Our Revolution, but also brandnew535 and the justice democrats, are looking to see how far that concept can work in local, state, and congressional elections around the country.
We'll see if the Democratic party establishment lets this anti-corporate wing develop or crushes it. The Mello incident wasn't encouraging. And I'm not sure there is a way on this particular vector for the two wings to accommodate one another comfortably. There needs to be a recognition on the anti-establishment side that some lesser-evil candidates need to be supported. And there needs to be a recognition on the part of the establishment that corporate power in the party needs to be balanced out by a real grass-roots accountability that is currently lacking if the party is to take back power. It's a hard balancing act. We'll see how it works out.
by Obey on Sat, 05/20/2017 - 5:46am
What is vital to recognize is that they did indeed try to crush it, it's the thought that counts, that's what reveals their nature and since second place is on the outside in electoral politics they were [mostly] successful. Sanders had a message of change in a definite and clearly articulated direction and as you say, he almost won. I do not see strong evidence that his message will be strong in the next Presidential election though because I don't expect it to even be on offer in any significant way. Who, with any standing of power in the Democratic Party, is taking up his causes and following up on his strong start by saying his way was a better way and Hillary's and the DNC's way is just heading us in the same direction, albeit maybe a bit slower, than that of the Republican Party which is more obviously corporatist. Their last best example is of Sanders losing his primary. They then proceeded to defeat a DNC candidate who wished to continue to push in Sanders' direction.
The fact that the DNC played power politics to defeat the candidate for its leadership, the one whom I believe the majority of Democrats wanted because of Sanders' endorsement, and installed the one they did to lead the Party through the next electoral cycle is an example that the Democratic Party as it exists now is still, in affect, a party of a relatively few and powerful operatives who didn't really lose anything by losing the election. And, the powerful are still that way mostly because of money. I don't expect that, ultimately, to change but if it does then maybe my expectations on the rest are misplaced. I wish I could be more optimistic. I do hope that the growing disillusionment will push Democrats in a good direction half as strongly as it has pushed Republicans in a bad direction but I am afraid that the Democratic politicians we get to choose from are guided more by self-interest and careerism than by any better political philosophy which they are willing to take risks to advance.
I am really not satisfied with my response but that is all I can offer right now. Glad you engaged the topic, always interested in your views.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 05/20/2017 - 10:10am
Sanders didn't "almost win" and if it were even close Hillary would have had to take to busting his balls rather than the holding back knowing she'd need his and his supporters' backing after the primaries. It was over in March, and that was with Karl Rove's PAC and Fox News actively supporting Bernie where possible.
And since it was over in March and Hillary was holding off spending for the generals and Bernie was strongest in the tinier caucuses, we can't easily draw conclusions about fund raising. Small donors won't necessarily multiply linearly for the general elections.
Also there's the bigger question of down ticket candidates. Can small donors support candidates at all levels, or just the top of the ticket? There were complaints that DNC money went to state level and got funneled back to national/Hillary. Will every candidate be able to muster small donor support or do we risk getting wiped out even further by having only the most charismatic or on-messages survive?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/20/2017 - 12:40pm