Below is the politically correct position on socialism.  It is of course
the rational economic system, but when it actually appears it is never
socialism.
wcm>
> Jared Israel wants to attack Noam Chomsky as being a liar about events
> in The Balkans.       And at the core of his attack, is a disagreement
> about the nature of Milosevic.      Jared states that no defense of
> Yugoslav self-determination is possible if Milosevic is labeled a
> monster.     Therefore, Jared wants to deny that Milosevic has ever done
> anything other than defend the socialist patria.
>
> On his side, there are a group of comrades that are convinced that
> Yugoslavia remains a socialized economy.   These marxists come from a
> tendency of thought that will admit no errors nor reactionary attributes
> of any kind, once they have decided that a leadership is playing this
> progressive role.
>
> The history of air brush in this wing of communist thought has a long,
> sad, and totally discredited history.....from Stalin to Lenin, Marx to
> Borge, Trotsky to Fidel, and countless other 'leaders' and 'leaderships'
> posted on banners with their faces shining as they look into the
> distance; this is the flip side of the comment that a 'monster' cannot
> be defended.
>
> Chomsky is without a doubt the most prominent of the intellectuals in
> the Western imperialist countries.      Therefore, it is important to
> examine his role in The Movement as a whole.     This much is to Jared's
> credit, his not fearing to take the big man- head on.   Has Chomsky
> hindered or hurt Movement building at the current stage?
>
> Chomsky definitely played a highly positive role for the Movement in the
> harsh days of the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Thatcher years.      He
> mobilized the demobilized and beaten back dominions of the Left, who
> turned out to hear his lectures in the thousands.        In some ways,
> his talks were demonstrations of a sort, often when no other Left
> demonstrations were to be found.
>
> That is the reason for so much hardened support for Chomsky from younger
> activists.     It is not necessarily his brilliance as an analyst today.
> In fact, his sermon-like analyses grow tiresome even for the faithful,
> when repeated time after time.
>
> It is not Chomsky's specifics on any one political question that make
> him more a tool for inaction, rather than action.     It is the fact
> that his group of Libertarian Socialists and intellectuals of varied
> stripes have no plan to mobilize anyone, beyond a kind of pasting
> themselves to a Socialist Democratic program moved by the broad herd.
>
> Their rhetoric is far to the left of what they are actually doing, which
> borders on a form of mass inactivity.       Luckily, a form of inchoate
> radicalism is emerging from alternate forms of radical Anarchist, Green,
> and Marxist leadership, that is principally bypassing in the streets
> what the Znet intellectuals are not doing from their individual offices.
>
> It is this abdication of leadership duties to mobilize one's followers,
> that most characterizeas the Chomsky and Albert brand of Anarchism.
> Both of these leaders refuse to lead people into actual street
> mobilization against the US war machine, wherever it is being used, and
> not just in the case of the US sponsored terror in The Balkans.
>
> As long as it is... analyses in abstractions, and criticisms up and down
> the line of US government policies, these two are supreme.         But
> they are not going to lead in building demonstrations of any kind,
> whether it be building unions, rallies against police brutality, or
> antiwar actions against NATO, or Plan Colombia.
>
> But, Jared, why focus on the anarchists?     Is it not the wings of the
> marxist Radical Left that are the principle demobilizers and
> immobilized?        Nobody forces these comrades to tag along after
> Nader and Chomsky, and do it in the name of advancing the labor movement
> and/or supposed future 'alternative' electoral possiblities for the
> marxist Left.
>
> You are a marxist, and even the marxist currents that support you do
> little to struggle against the US military in general.       It's not
> the followers of Chomsky and crowd that are holding things back, it is
> the lack of engagement of the marxist currents in opposing Hispanic and
> Black support for the military, that is.
>
> Do you think that taking on Chomsky in a battle over determining the
> character of Milosevic is central to the tasks that the US Left needs to
> do?        How are we going to build a movement against the US war
> machine in the working class communities, if we marxists refuse to even
> try to struggle to build a movement there?
>
> Most of the Black community believes that US military presence is a good
> thing in Africa.        Most of the Hispanic community supports US
> military solutions to problems in Mexico and South America.    We have
> to convince them otherwise.
>
> Chomsky and his supporters, both Anarchist and Marxist, should be called
> to task for not building a movement in support of African and Latin
> American self-determination, all the time wringing their hands about the
> self-determination of grouplets of US supported nationalist movements
> elsewhere.     But the Marxist Left is just as guilty.
>
> Yes, a 'monster' can be defended, but only if the public is generally
> mobilized against the true Frankenstein loose in the World today.
> And that monster is the US  capitalist military.         Counterpose
> this simple concept of what is to be done, to the obscurantist pibble of
> Michael Albert talking about "Team Change' below.      Is he Zig Zigler,
> or what?
>
> ________________________________     The Stickiness Problem
> By Michael Albert
>
> Toward the end of last Summer I spoke at a National Green gathering
> about "movement building." My initial idea was to discuss the
> progressive and left community's outreach problem. We try to reach
> potential allies in society and to "reel them in" to full participation.
> Not enough  people hear us. Our outreach problem involves our
> organizing methods, campaigns, and demands and how they appeal to
> people, but also our need for "a megaphone" loud enough to reach beyond
> audiences already seeking us out—our own progressive mass media.
>
> But as I thought about movement building, I realized there was another
> problem that was even worse than outreach because it was more
> debilitating and we had less excuse for it. Think of the
> progressive/left community as a team, if you will, fighting against both
> apathy and outright support for the status quo. Call it Team Change.
>
> Size isn't the only variable affecting Team Change's strength, for sure,
> but without numbers we aren't going far so we must reach out more
> widely. But as we do reach out and get people's attention or
> involvement, do we then keep them committed? Call this the "Stickiness
> Problem."
>
> To win fundamental change, and that is our purpose, not solely to play
> well, Team Change needs a force field that draws potential team members
> steadily leftward ever more strongly the closer it attracts them. First
> a person hears about some facet of Team Change. There is an attraction,
> however slight. As the person is drawn closer the attraction must
> increase to offset counter pressures from society to avoid Team Change
> lest the person get away. Once a person joins Team Change, the
> attraction should sustain permanent membership.
>
> Do we have this kind of community seeking change? To decide, we can look
> at (1) the historical experience that Team Change has had with potential
> recruits in the past, and (2) the characteristics of Team Change to see
> whether its attractive force escalates as people get closer to steady
> involvement.
>
> Consider the past 30 years. How many people have heard about, come into
> contact with, worked with, or become part of Team Change who no longer
> have anything much to do with it? The number, I think, is in the
> millions, perhaps ten million. Remember this includes folks from the
> Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the women's
> movement. It includes those who have been No Nukers, in green movements,
> and in student movements. It includes everyone who has worked in truly
> progressive local projects and struggles of all kinds and in various
> left electoral campaigns. Anyone who has taken a course from a radical
> faculty person, read a left book, or been part of the anti Gulf War
> movement, the anti-apartheid movement, or the various Latin American
> solidarity movements counts. So do those who have been in gay and
> lesbian movements, in pro choice campaigns, in community and consumer
> movements, and in union organizing campaigns, labor struggles,
> anti-racist campaigns, strikes and boycotts, and also people who have
> gone to talks or demonstrations, listened to progressive radio or read
> progressive periodicals. Ten million is conservative. And of all these
> millions of people how many are still an active part of Team Change?
>
> When I faced up to this gap between those reached and those actively
> involved, while preparing my talk for a very small Green National
> Convention, I was shocked. If you think in terms of a year or two, the
> left's outreach problem seems paramount. How do we get beyond the choir?
> But if you think about a decade orr two, the left's stickiness problem
> demands attention. I'm being a little cute with the analogy and labels,
> yes, but this gap between possibility and actuality is at the heart of
> our prospects for social change.
>
> Let's come at it from another angle. Why should someone, once attracted
> to the logic, dynamics, behaviors, and programs of the progressive/left
> community, stick to it? Conversely, why do people feel steadily less
> attachment as time passes, only to finally return to the mainstream?
>
> Well, think of a person getting more and more involved with progressive
> ideas and activity. Does this person merge into a growing community of
> people who make him feel more secure and appreciated?
>
> Does she get a growing sense of personal worth and of contribution to
> something valuable? Does he enjoy a sense of accomplishment? Does she
> have her needs better met than before? Does his life get better? Does it
> seem that she is making a contribution to improving others lives, as
> well?
>
> Or, conversely, does this person meet a lot of other people who
> continually question his motives and behaviors, making him feel insecure
> and constantly criticized? Does she feel diminishing personal worth and
> doubt that what she is doing is making a difference for anyone?
>
> Does he suspect there is little accomplished, and no daily, weekly, or
> monthly evidence of progress? Does she have needs that were previously
> met, now unmet, and few new ones addressed? Is his life getting more
> frustrating, less enjoyable? Does it seem she is only bothering other
> people, rarely doing anything meaningful on their behalf? Does he find
> himself ever less aware of what "the left" is or stands for, repulsed by
> its vague, or bitter attributes rather than attracted to its clariety,
> insights, and success?
>
> You might ask different questions than I have, but I think the point is
> clear enough. The stickiness problem is graphically defined.
>
> Let's stretch the Team Change analogy. Imagine a football, baseball,
> basketball, or soccer team. Whether it is high school, college, or
> professional doesn't matter.
> Suppose it doesn't improve its results as time passes. At some point the
> coach looks at the choices made, the strategies used, the norms employed
> and says, hold on, we have to make some corrections.
>
> Okay, our Team Change has no coach and it needs to be participatory and
> democratic, so being self-critical is everyone's responsibility. But
> Team Change must also play to win if it is concerned with more than mere
> posturing.
> And that means we need to reassess how we organize ourselves, the
> culture of our movements, what we learn as we become more committed, how
> we interrelate, and what benefits and responsibilities we have due to
> our political involvement. The alternative to doing much better
> regarding "movement stickiness" is another long losing season…two or
> three decades worth, I think, which, unlike for inflexible high school,
> college, and professional ball clubs, means hundreds of millions of
> lives unnecessarily ended for want of our greater success and final
> victory.
>
> Let me put it this way. Being right about what's wrong with society and
> why it is wrong, and even being able to convey all this to wide
> audiences, just isn't enough.
>
> Movements must be clear about goals and strategy to retain a sense of
> purpose, confidence, identity, and integrity in the face of critique.
> They have to be structured and function in ways that not only enlarge
> but retain membership, and that not only contribute to change but do so
> clearly in all members' eyes. They have to not only attack problems, but
> to meet needs for members and populations more broadly, and they have to
> win victories that meet needs but also create the conditions for still
> more victories to follow. The absence of all this is our stickiness
> problem.
>
> I have my own notions about the causes of the problem having to do with
> our lack of compelling guiding vision and strategy, our unclear class
> allegiances, and our continuing inability to combine respect for
> desirable autonomies and for essential solidarities both in a single
> encompassing movement. Others will have different notions. Can we at
> least agree that a priority is to enumerate the possibilities, assess
> them, and then develop clear plans for how to do better in the coming
> years? If we don't manage this much, I fear we will be running in ever
> narrowing circles with a movement of diehards rather than astute social
> critics.
>
> Michael Albert, co-editor of Z, is the author of numerous books on
> economics, vision, and strategy.
>