From: Carrol CoxTo: marxism-international Subject: Re: M-I: For a culture of scientific discussion (Ben replies Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 4:10 PM Jason writes: [SNIP] >break not forge necessary relationships with masses of (potentially >or actually) progressive though "reformist" people. Forgive my ignorance, but what precisely did Jackson do that actively joins him to the forces of reaction? Endorse Clinton? (Whaddaya expect > from a liberal?) "Endorse Clinton?" Yes. And of course the core of this current thread revolves around what marxists *can* legitimately and usefully expect with "liberals" before joining forces with them, in however limited a way. And my present tendency is to say that one of our primary tasks is to expose Clinton, *and the Democratic Party as an institution*, as the slime they are. I do not consider that "ultra-leftist," because I doubt that any sort of decent progressive advances, reformist or revolutionary, can now be made except in the teeth of Democratic Party opposition. There is no longer anything to gain by any sort of association, with however long a spoon, with the DP. Now Jackson may not be a turncoat (as Louis P points out, it is not very profound to discover that Jesse is not nor ever was a revolutionary), but in a way he is, for what he is doing now (however consonant with his "real" personal motives in 1988) is a total betrayal of everything he at least pretended to stand for then. > > >I think the same arguments apply to Gloria Steinem. Her 1996 appearance > at > >the Democratic National Convention and her recent op-ed piece in the New > >York Times were utterly shameless. They were not the acts of a "mere > >reformist," they were the acts of a dedicated enemy of any significant > >reform. That she is not a revolutionary is irrelevant. That she is a > scab > >and a proud one is relevant. > > I know she made lame excuses for Clinton at the '96 DNC, but I haven't > seen said op-ed piece...please summarize. She claimed sexual harassment consisted only in not taking no for an answer, and hence none of the acts Clinton was accused of was sexual harassment, because he just asked, got told no, and accepted the answer. Carrol (I was glad to see a statement today in the Chicago Tribune from the state leadership of NOW which refused to discriminate between being an utter horse's ass (Clinton) and some abstract legal identification of "sexual harassment. One can't expect much from NOW, but clearly at least some of them have not sunk to STeinem's depths. --- from list marxism-international@lists.village.virginia.edu ---