“Stepping stones” is a terrible reflection on how people arrive at any politics– as if people see the opposite bank and strive toward it. The “direct route” only exists as such for those who know where they want to go.

What makes you think that anyone wants to go down your path and explore no others? Go ahead and close down any indirect routes. Build walls on either side, and a ceiling above so that the only choices upon your path are forward or back. I’m sure everyone with leftist leanings will say, “Well, I can perhaps see that little light at the other end of this tunnel. I have no idea what it means, but maybe I should give up my exploration of the world with its sun and rain and clouds and trees and commit to this one path. That way I will not be distracted by anything.”

Or maybe out of basic human curiosity they’ll keep looking for their own way across, and finding all other ways blocked, insha’allah, they will settle somewhere else entirely.

Brilliant plan.

I think reading authors like Chomsky is an infinitely superior way to be introduced to the anti-capitalist perspective. From a radical point of view, time sunk into Adbusters is just wasted time. While I concede your point that organizations like Adbusters do serve as “stepping stones” to radical politics, there are far more direct routes that can be taken, and an effective socialist movement should be able to make these routes more visible than they are. At any rate, it does not bode well for radical politics if the most visible routes to radical politics are petit-bourgeois organizations like Adbusters and Crimethinc.

Organization is key. The old Leninist slogan that “the working class is nothing without a party, but everything with one” isn’t complete drivel. The aversion to theory and organization go hand in hand in my book, let’s hope we’ll turn the corner before we are old, bitter cynics.

For the moment as a student activist, I’m quite happy with the recent strides that YDS has taken. I don’t think there’s much else going on in the student left that lends itself to optimism. (not SDS or USAS for example).

That said, while I’m incredibly pleased to have found this site and other materials through the DSA and YDSA, I’ve begun to realize that all the clairvoyance and lucidity of these philosophical arguments, while profound to read, is tantamount to garbage for the average citizen– nothing more than highbrow bickering. Of course any serious political movement requires an intellectual foundation, and ours is not lacking. But, to parrot the rest–this seems to be about all we’ve got.

It’s easy to see why people turn away from democratic socialism at the start– with no unified political front, there’s no traction- and thus no legitimacy. Instantly brushed-off as utopian dribble, or good on paper, but paper only.

How do we change that?
I’m finding that cultural and economic issues must be addressed patently. No pretensions, and no reservations. And as such, political organization is paramount for garnering future public support.

So it’s worth mentioning that Adbusters, was, in fact, a stepping stone for me and others I know in developing an anti-capitalist perspective, and into further exploring the left as it is in the US today. Sure, it’s a rag- but a rag that gets read. The greater public discourse there is on the subject, the greater chance there is of having genuine political motion.

Of course you have a line. You just spelled it out above. A line is nothing more than a position. And your position is pretty damn close to the old Weather Underground position re: “First World” workers (or at least white ones).

My life would be much easier if I was paid above the value of what I “produce,” BTW (I put “produce” in quotes because I’m not an industrial worker though I’m damn well a wage-slave).

and… on moral nihilism

“There is no such thing as good or evil, there is no universal standard of right and wrong”

Saying there are no *intrinsic* values or meaning is different than asserting that socially constructed “goods” and “evils” should all be discarded in pursuit of some personal liberation from the collective. “There is no universal moral code that should dictate human behavior.” That’s the deeply disturbing, objectionable part in my view.

Solidarity. Greetings. Happy New Years, etc.

At any rate, you’ve shown nothing in your post. You’ve merely said “nu-uh,” and backed it up with a quote saying the same. Forgive me for not being convinced. The real meat of your “argument” seems to be more of the “nihilist!” mode of argument, except now it’s “third-worldist!” Well, so what if it is? What matters is what’s true, and it is transparently obvious that the “first world” exploits the “third world,” just as it’s obvious that objective morality is philosophically incoherent. These truths are self-evident to anyone who spends a moment considering them.

Anyway, good blog. I’m not a hater. Solidarity and all that.

You’re repeating a fallacy from (or echoing leftist “commonsense” that has its roots in) Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. It’s easy to see how Lenin made his mistakes, but in 2009, almost a century after the fact, its amazing to see this repeated.

For those unfamiliar: “Lenin’s theory contends that companies in the developed world exploit workers in the developing world (where wages are much lower), resulting in increased profits. Because of these increased profits, the companies are able to pay higher wages to their employees “at home” (that is, in the developed world), thus creating a working class satisfied with their standard of living and not inclined to proletarian revolution. Lenin thus contended that imperialism had prevented increasing class polarization in the developed world, and argued that a workers’ revolution could only begin in one of the underdeveloped or semideveloped countries, such as Russia.”

Lenin was wrong. The affluence of the First World did not depend on the exploitation the poor in the Third World. Lenin thought that the export of capital to the periphery is necessary because domestically surplus could not be absorbed because if it was incapable of mass consumption. This made sense in 1916, but Lenin could not anticipate the erection of the welfare state and the more equally shared prosperity of the post-War era. The post-war era saw a shift **away** from capital investment abroad and yet it sparked the “golden age” of American capitalism. (Also the “weak link theory” of peripheral revolutions sparking ones in the core didn’t exactly turn out either.)

To quote Harrington, “[the fact that Lenin was wrong] in no way meant that the North had become more benevolent in its behavior towards the South. The profits made from the wretched of the earth were now more a cruel convenience than a matter of survival.”

Don’t get me wrong. The rest of the work is important. The parts about the emergence of finance capital through the merging of industry and finance— what I am attacking is this notion that the affluence of the West is the complete result of colonial and neo-colonial extraction. No doubt Americans benefit from cheaply created goods made in China and elsewhere with hyper-exploited workers, but to totally discount the working class in core capitalist nations? I feel like we’ve been down this path before. The “labor aristocracy” nonsense in relation to ordinary workers is the road to a Third Worldism. The world needs a radical movement in the core capitalist countries.

***

Here’s a critique I saw posted a while back that goes into the economics of why that theory is bunk: http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/128

Sorry, Sam, but you’ve smuggled in at least two unsupported claims there: (1) that the consumer goods you buy are the fruits of your labor; (2) that your wages represent the value of your labor.

In fact, as a “first world” worker, you represent the labor aristocracy, and are paid *more* than the value of what you produce. This is possible because you are the beneficiary of “first world” imperialism (hence the reactionary xenophobia of most unions). The lifestyle you enjoy is not the fruit of your labor — it is built on the backs of “third world” workers, who represent the only revolutionary demographic on the planet.

Your fundamental error is in viewing the world with nationalist blinders on. Take them off, and view the entire planet rather than just your own nation, and your error becomes clear. Remember: workers have no country. We live on a capitalist planet; when you benefit from the artificial divisions of nationalism, you can only end up serving the interests of reaction.