From:    Carrol Cox 
To:      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 ---