The broad left often fails to realize that civil society is, as Gramsci reminds us, a “dialectical unity” with political society. That is, political actors and organizations in civil society do not operate absolutely outside of the social, economic, and ideological dictates of political society [eg The Audubon Society's support for Vilsack]. Is there any reason why over the last three decades we have witnessed the delegitimation of the state as well as state initiatives by those forces on the left in concert with the rise of the conservative assault on a nominal American welfare state? [I think he means that within Civil Society the idea of "shrinking the size of government" has enjoyed as much hegemony as within the hallowed halls of the Club For Growth, AEI, Heritage, CATO, etc]He calls for the decolonization of American political society, and adds:
"a people’s agenda for change catalyzed by the politics of freedom recognizes that US domestic policy cannot undergo a revolutionary transformation without an end to the policies and practices of American empire abroad. Such a political transvaluation is not effected by renewed calls for “American leadership” – a convenient euphemism for the continuation of American dominance – but by a new vision of an interrelated world community that prioritizes the lives of people over power based on the principle of cooperation and not competition.Tufts historian Gary Leupp skips Gramsci and goes directly to Marx to analyze the situation:
A lot of liberal Democrats---people who believe in the system (although maybe less so day by day, since it isn’t being very good to them)---are echoing the complaint from David Corn of Mother Jones: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Pictured.” Perhaps they feel, to put it in Marxian terms, that he exploited their labor power during the election campaign, and now for all their efforts on his behalf he’s slapping them in the face.
maybe what we’re seeing is a war within Obama’s own mindset. Not a war, mind you, about whether or not to champion U.S. imperialism; if he had doubts about that he wouldn’t be a U.S. politician, or at least a highly successful one attracting the money and endorsements that he has. He is plainly a creature of U.S. capitalism and seeks to enhance its geopolitical advantages; that is a big part of his job description.
I think Leupp has tapped something very important below. One of the hallmarks of Empire is its ability to recognize, recruit and retain talent from throughout its diverse realms (that is scribes, artists, architects, etc. of all races and creeds). But what characterizes all would-be Project Managers for Empire drawn from marginal social groups is their deep seated desire to for acceptance from the existing power structure. He elaborates:
Obama’s staff and cabinet picks suggest a deep desire for acceptance by the existing power structure. It’s as though he’s bending over backwards to disabuse anyone of those nasty campaign rumors that he’s a cypto-Muslim, Arabophiliac, quasi-socialist or closet Marxist. It’s as though he’s actively soliciting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from Joe Lieberman, Karl Rove, Henry Kissinger, Lindsay Graham, Michael Goldfarb, Richard Perle and the other extreme reactionaries expressing their delight at his cabinet choices, and viewing such support as recognition of his own special gift as a healer and uniter. But how can he possibly expect to unite his antiwar base with his rightwing foreign policy team?
The question now becomes: which villages will be pummeled by American bombs in the name of "credibility" and "national unity."
No comments:
Post a Comment