Continuing the discussion begun in the last two posts, here is my response to Gary's email:
Salutations,
Yeah, I agree with you that his approach to talking about u.s. history was more than just a few comments. There were incredibly powerful truths that he was giving some voice to. But there is an incredibly subtle but meaningful way that he spoke about this which is co-optative. Talking about racism as a "legacy" of slavery and Jim Crow rather than an inherent way that capital organizes labor hierarchically, talking about corporate "greed" as a "culture" and emphasizing "inside deals" and scandals rather than talking about profit and capital as structurally opposed to worker's well-being, etc.
It is true that what he put forward was indeed different from what the mass media usually presents. I was particularly impressed by his discussion of resentments and consciousness in Black and white communities and the discussions that are going on beyond "polite company".
Yet, I feel it is necessary to see his activities as strategic responses of a particular sector of a class to political pressures. Obama has been forced to take up this discussion. We cannot lose sight of the fact that his narratives are directly related to the denunciation of militant Black nationalist narratives. While one may or may not agree with the rhetoric, the substance of Black nationalism is Black power. Coming together across "race" lines, if it is to be a unity of mutual respect, must mean that Black folks come with their own power. Obama's "unity" erases and even joins in being suspect in attempts to build Black autonomous power. He characterizes it as "left over" resentment. Further, he suggests that really we all have the same interests. That if we simply fight for better schools, jobs, etc, we will all move forward. But this fails to recognize that this does not solve the gap in power/resources between sectors of the working-class. Only power among the most oppressed can do that. But he cleverly undermines the basis for autonomous and militant Black organizing.
Let me clarify my position on Obama as a strategic enemy. I see the electoral system as a battleground between interests like any other social sphere. On the federal level the grounds are incredibly skewed to ruling class interests, but even then these interests must respond to pressure from many different angles. I don't think the struggle for democracy and the vote was meaningless. It creates new pressures and opportunities, it remakes the organization of power on the battlefield. When I said that Obama was my strategic enemy I meant to communicate that while although he represents a good defensive choice among the representatives of ruling class interests, it is crucial to remember that he does indeed represent an attempt to salvage capitalism and make it more attractive to workers. Obama, like any other president, would oppose any attempt to overthrow the system. Not because he's Obama, but because he has been financed and supported by the very corporate elite who he rhetorically critiques, as you point out. [For the record, Global Hyatt/Microtel leases my labor. I own it. Small distinction that is crucial.] He would never go for an end to private ownership of major worksites. He would defend private property to the death...well, maybe some soldier's death, probably not his own.
I do think he is a better candidate than the republicans and perhaps better than Clinton (I don't really have a position on Clinton/Obama). But I think it is essential to remember that he represents an attempt to reassert the power of capital. He may give out important concessions, but he is fundamentally a representative of the ruling class(es). I think it is possible for the ruling class, or sections of it, to be rhetorically critical of certain aspects of the social system. This is even necessary at various times and is sometimes combined with more social spending by government and more leniency towards certain social demands. But they are still ruling class policies in that they give concessions with the ultimate goal of maintaining power and will fight like hell against radical movements.
I think he's worth voting for, however (if you've decided that federal elections are a place you're gonna fight). If you wanna vote for me you'll probably need to move to durham, nc. look for me or someone I really support in 5-10 years. By then I'm hoping there will be something worthy of the title "People's Republic of Durham".
paz
No comments:
Post a Comment