Below is a PDF copy of “DECIPHERING KARL ROVE’S PLAYBOOK:
CAMPAIGN TACTICS AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES”
Below is a PDF copy of “DECIPHERING KARL ROVE’S PLAYBOOK:
CAMPAIGN TACTICS AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES”
It’s been a long time since I don’t hear or see the word peace anywhere.
The last time that word was trending was in the 60s, you know, when the stoned-headed hippies were tripping with it. It gave them a bad reputation, that and the acid they were consuming, courtesy of the CIA.
The First World War was “the war to end all wars”. That was the first and last time humanity actually fought for peace itself. The newly minted working-class (product of the new kid in the block, heavy industry and capitalism) took their masters to task. In Germany, there were actually legislation demanding “peace without annexation”, and international solidarity among the workers (male and female). There were uprising of soldiers and sailors against the war.
Those were the days. Well, those were the days of open warfare between the working class and the capitalists; that’s what it was really all about, that and colonialism for stealing the wealth of weak nations for the industrialists’ profit.
Today…well, today we still go to war to take the wealth of other nations; we still cover the truth with words like “for freedom”, “to save people from their dictators” by bombing said people.
What can be said about today’s working class? They don’t have that spirit of the past; they are merely trying to survive in their own nations. They are so poor, they are willing to sell themselves as soldiers-of-fortune. They can’t even elect people willing to pass a resolution against any war. And don’t tell me it’s because the “democratic party is the party of Wall Street”; that’s a cop-out. The only thing people do here is vote and call their ‘representatives’. That was fine for a while, can’t you see it’s not working anymore?
The word peace has become permanent collateral damage of our permanent wars ever since…”The only thing to fear is fear itself”, said Roosevelt to walk Americans towards war, and we have marched towards war ever since. We haven’t been without wars since then. Then the new millennium started with Bush’s invasion of Iraq after 9/11; now it seems we are marching towards another atomic conflagration, another hecatomb, this time in North Korea. Our crazy president may have to nuke the people of that nation to save them from their own crazy leader.
I tell you, war is ‘so cheap’; people buy it wholesale for $0.50, the cost of the newspapers they read filled with pro-war propaganda they accept mindlessly. That word, mindlessly, reminded me of The Buddha.
The Buddha had an interesting message: The Doctrine of the Mind. He said that
Whatsoever there is of evil, connected with evil, belonging to evil – all issues from the mind.
Whatsoever there is of good, connected with good, belonging to good – all issues from the mind.
He then taught:
But I’m done with humans. I have come to accept that the human race is incorrigible. They believe Trump and admire warmongering billionaires like Tillerson, but mock The Buddha. They care not about another atomic hecatomb, this time in North Korea.
So I will go on reminding people about the word ‘peace’. It is in our minds if we want it to be. Don’t put conditions on peace; if you want peace, then it can’t be “after Assad is removed from power”, or “after we get rid of Isil”.
It has to be NOW, PERIOD. Demand a NEGOTIATED PEACE without bombing for it.
Identity politics strips away thinking of one’s interest in having to work for a living.
Only racist people can shame you for fighting racism, misogyny and xenophobia.
The specter of stealthy racism and misogyny rises again in the progressive movement, this time from the pen of famous leftist economist Michael Hudson (is he leftist?) in his recent article Trump is Obama’s Legacy: Will this Break up the Democratic Party? at Counter Punch magazine. I have to ask “is he leftist?” because Counter Punch is the preferred site of alt-right third-way conservatives who speak, without an accent, the leftist lingo to better contaminate with their racism and misogyny the minds of unsuspecting progressives. Paul Craig Robertson is one of those alt-right and openly conservatives whose right-wing ideology is often published there under the guise of ‘leftist’ opinion; that good they are at impersonating leftist’s ‘thinking’.
But that’s a different story. I’m here to talk about Mr. Hudson’s, and the alt-right’s, anti-women and racist ideology passed on in his article as criticism of “identity politics” (IdPol)
The enemy within: “Identity Politics as anti-labor politics”
Mr. Hudson opens the discussion of Identity Politics defining in the heading IdPol as “anti-labor”. It’s the only definition he offers of it to the reader, passing then to wrongly describe what IdPol does. By defining it as “anti” labor, he clears up the battlefield for the confrontation between the two enemies: the ‘labor movement’ vs everybody else.
You see, if you happen to believe that there are other forms of institutionalized oppression, in addition to labor, with roots both in culture and economic politics, then Mr. Hudson will cast you on the side of the enemy of the white male “working class”: you are “everybody else”; and if you ARE a unionized working person, then you must be the enemy within. Let’s be honest, today, the intellectual leftists are more preoccupied with the suffering of the white male working class “abandoned and insulted by Clinton and the democratic party” than with that of women and children, be it as workers (child labor) or sex-slaves; not even interested with the economical well-being of ‘colored’ laborers. So when the intellectual leftists, Mr. Hudson and the alt-right use the term “working class”, white male working class is what they mean. And they mean race and gender are the enemies of that particular segment of the working class.
The article does not mention the unemployed women and ‘colored people’ demands for jobs, whether historically or in the present. The non-whites’ struggle for jobs is not part of the author’s idea of ‘working class’. That’s why Mr. Hudson implies that the reason these people ‘practice’ IdPol is because they don’t want to work for a living, as he says in the article:
“Identity politics strips away thinking of one’s interest in terms of having to work for a living.”
Mind you, not even the ‘labor movement’ itself adopts Mr. Hudson’s extreme stereotyping definition of IdPol, for they continue to support with actions the demands of so-called ‘identity’ groups: women, immigrants, people of color, LGBT. But with his anti-IdPol, Mr. Hudson and the extreme GOP alt-right can light up in what remains of the labor movement the fire of hatred of women, with the leftist intellectuals fanning that fire in their leftist media.
Answer this quickly: When have you seen a racist/white supremacist/GOP/conservative calling for an end to racism and misogyny? That’s why only “labor politics” matters to Mr. Hudson and the leftists intellectuals.
The Black Panthers: enemies of labor?
He starts the discussion of Idpol by saying that the term ‘identity politics’ is a “new term introduced to the English language“; that’s it, period. He forgets to state ‘when’ or ‘who’ “introduced” it. It matters, ‘who’.
According to some writers (e.g., Howard J. Wiarda in “Political Culture, Political Science, and Identity Politics: An Uneasy Alliance”), the term has been in use since at least the 1960-70s; that doesn’t make it “new”, or does it? The revolutionary movement of that time used the term to inform the public about oppression by capitalism in all spheres of human relations, including the personal. Groups like Black Panthers and feminists used it, you know, the people who, according to Mr. Hudson’s definition of IdPol, you should condemn today for using ‘identity politics’. But we don’t want to condemn them, do we?, at least not consciously.
That’s why Mr. Hudson’s assertion about the origin of the term IdPol is purposely superficial, because it surreptitiously leads to the condemnation of the recent history of the people’ struggles against all forms of capitalist/conservative oppression. And what is good for the goose is good for the gander: if we accept that it was necessary for those people in the 60s and 70s to fight against the racism and misogyny that comes intertwined with economic oppression, so it is today.
Culture and the culture of oppression
Mr. Hudson’s and the alt-right’s racist ideology stands on the believe that the oligarchy, globalists, and conservative elites of all flavors don’t use culture to oppress the rest of humanity; that only our 9 to 5 work-life interest them, but not controlling what happens in our ‘cultural space’ after hours. Believe that ideology on your own peril.
Were concentration camp ‘Jews’ anti-labor?
But IdPol have been in use since MANY years before the 7os. Mr.Hudson forgets to mention that the legs on which Hitler’s Nazism stood was precisely identity politics: German ‘racial superiority’, the ‘inferiority’ of Jews, Blacks, women, homosexuals, the mentally ill; and of non-German ‘ethnic nationals’…all of whom were so ‘inferior’ as to deserve been incinerated in concentration camps. Consider this: If you were a non-mentally ill/not physically disabled white ‘Aryan’ male in Nazi Germany, would you have feared Hitler’s RACIAL policies? What if you were a ‘Jew’, would you have feared his racial policies? Would you have said, in those days, ‘let’s not talk about Hitler’s identity politics of persecuting me because of my Jewishness/Blackness; let’s concentrate on Hitler’s union-busting practices?’
Only RACIST people don’t fear racist policies and politics. Only racist people can shame you for fighting against racism, misogyny and xenophobia. Only racists can tell you that you should worry ONLY about wages, that you should NOT support anyone who stands to defend you against racism…Only Mr. Hudson, a white male who has done nothing for “the working class” can define for you your priorities: racism and misogyny are NOT the priorities of the white male labor ‘movement’, so they can’t be yours either.
Woman, where were you on Trump’s inauguration day?
(The “52% of white women who voted for Trump”)
Mr. Hudson wouldn’t be worthy of being called a white elitist man if he didn’t attack women in his piece. He blamed. literally, the women’s march on D.C. for the absence of the left and unions on Trump’s inauguration day. Was he there that day? I didn’t see him.
I went to the inauguration, and my first observation was ‘Where are the unions, where are the leftists, where is everybody?’ There were less than 3K people where I was. Mr. Hudson answered the question for me: it was the women, stupid! Somehow those evil pro-Clinton women bewitched the leftists, the anti-war ‘movement’ and the unions members on January 20 to stay at home that day. Sounds to me like Mr. Hudson suffers from typical men’s primordial fear of women.
Maybe he should talk to Paul Craig Robertson who wrote an article about the demise of the American left. Paul is right, the American left is dead, and the alt-right has taken its place, that’s why they didn’t show up. But also because they are supporting Trump dreaming that he is the new revolutionary of peace because of his love for Putin. Everybody knows that the union movement have been decimated too, but not by the women’s movement. There were no leftists, unions or anti-war marchers in the millions at Trump’s inauguration because those movements have been destroyed: by the conservatives, GOP, globalists, and SOME in the Democratic party.
Also, Mr. Hudson states that “52% of white women voted for Trump”. I tell him 98% of BLACK women voted for Hillary Clinton. These are women who, with good reasons, are afraid of Trump’s racism; white women are not afraid of his racism. I congratulate Black women for being the ONLY group on which the media propaganda (left and right) failed completely to manipulate voters into voting for Trump. They may not all be feminists (must of them aren’t) but they sure knew that, in terms of national policies, Trump is the enemy. They know that the killing of their Black children will continue under Trump, but their boys bought the misogynistic fear of a woman running the nation and decided to stay home; they voted in that way against their own interests and their mothers.
Mr. Hudson says that the media “informed” us that white women didn’t feel welcome at the march. The media has ignored women’s activities, and when they mention them, it is ALWAYS to denigrate the women or to create division. The march in D.C. was very white indeed. Propaganda, what do you expect from our mainstream media?
The question is Where were those people who Saturday? Did they come to show support to working women, to victims of violence, to children, to disabled people; to stand against Trump’s upcoming wars, which we knew were around the corner? So much for ‘anti-war movement’.
The women’s march was open for everybody who knew that the struggle continues with Trump. But our intellectual leftists have filled the minds of some men and women with the idea that we must wait and give Trump a chance to prove that he is the “revolutionary” they have made him to be in their puny imaginations. These ‘leftists’ would rather stick a fork in their eyes than get caught marching with women!
Mr. Hudson didn’t show up there, actually, he doesn’t show up ANYWHERE, because he is a conservative. He considers women’s issues to be “non-issues, non-threatening to the donor class”; in other words, women are ‘wimps’. He and the intellectual leftists lament that women were marching against Trump. I’m sure that after Trump’s bombing of Syria, they will not recognize that women were correct in marching against him. As long as women don’t do as men tell them, men will be angry at them.
Mr. Hudson misses ‘the simplicity of the past’
(typical of conservatives)
According to the author, identity pol.
“used to be about three major categories: workers and unionization, anti-war protests and civil rights marches against racist Jim Crow laws. That ended when these movements got co-opted into the Democratic Party.”
When you put it like that, the people’ struggle against all kind of oppression seem less cumbersome, for we can now see what it is NOT about. The following is an incomplete list of non-issues derived from Mr. Hudson’ statement above:
Interestingly enough, these are all economic issues that affect the elite conservative businesses and the globalists, which is why they oppose the people fighting to achieve them. Fighting “Jim Crow” was OK, but not fighting against the institutionalized racism that Mr. King fought, the one from which white conservatives profited; and Black women are not in the image we get in our minds when we talk about racism. By mentioning only Jim Crow, Mr. Hudson shows us his true colors.
If we had focused only on those three issues, the following would have never happened, but they did:
We take for granted many of the rights we ‘enjoy’ today, but they were all won with blood. Only conservatives and globalists want us to ignore those issues, mainly because they created and benefit from them.
Put the blame on Mame boys
That ended when these movements got co-opted into the Democratic Party.
Not only Mr. Hudson and the alt-right don’t blame the GOP for the ending of “these movements”, you will NOT find the leftist intellectuals blaming them either. All the blame for the loss of workers rights goes to the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton, as if the persistent attacks on labor didn’t start in the 1900s with the advent of the new capitalism. Don’t socialists agree in that capitalism can’t exist without the proletarians and is perpetually fighting against them? Is it possible that the GOP is not the representative of capitalists? Why attack the party with the most working class in it and leave the white supremacists’ party untouched?
You must ask yourselves why these people deflect attention from the GOP, who benefits from it and from destroying the democratic party; who benefits from leaving the GOP as the only party in the nation?
Propaganda is a fun when you know how to do it
In describing how IdPols ‘works’, Mr. Hudson says:
“Its aim is for voters to think of themselves as separatist minorities – women, LGBTQ, Blacks and Hispanics. The Democrats thought they could beat Trump by organizing Women for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), LGBTQ for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), and Blacks and Hispanics for Wall Street (and a New Cold War). Each identity cohort was headed by a billionaire or hedge fund donor.
Well…that quote is so offensive I don’t even know where to start. OK. I will start with the propaganda in it.
Many people accept that there is such a thing as “propaganda”, but most refuse to accept the examples of how it manifests, so you may not see propaganda in that quote. The phrase “and New Cold War”, in caps and all, is an emotionally negative message repeated over and over, and associated with the names of each group representing a political issue. This IS one technique of propaganda. “New Cold War”, that was the bogeyman used against the democratic party, not against the GOP.
Mr. Hudson expertly associates the fights against misogyny, racism and other forms of oppression by conservatives and globalists, with the hatred inculcated in some progressives against the democratic party. We LGBT, women, Blacks…we are all for “the Cold War” the dems are planning, according to Mr. Hudson. Hate them! (“1984”)
Of course, typical of a smear campaign, Mr. Hudson provides no evidence that there were “groups of women for Wall Street…” nor that there is a “billionaire” behind “each identity cohort”. Mr. Hudson, you are a liar, and your opinion drips with disdain for anyone who is not a white male like you.
But that doesn’t matter for those who believe in the “evil witch”; the attacks don’t have to be proven. The accusations themselves have become the ‘evidence’: just say it, it will become true by the magic of pronunciation.
Conclusion: Divide and conquer
Mr. Hudson’s article is an effort at dividing the progressive movement, just as the conservative white racists divided the labor movement by pitting Blacks and whites against each other. Here they are doing it again.
I know it’s too late to bring attention to how the alt-right has invaded the progressives’ consciousness with their racism and misogyny via the ‘leftists’ media: it’s fait-accompli (we saw it in the results of the elections). I lack the skills to make a sound argument, let alone writing skills. But this I can tell you: The alt-right wants us to forget history, ours and theirs. They shame us for fighting against the many forms in which we are oppressed daily. They portray us in the same way Nazis portrayed everyone who was not a white Aryan man: corrupt, lazy and ignorant. If they are planning concentration camps with ‘the wall’, we all are going to be shoved there.
For you out there who see what I see (am not alone), please, don’t stay quiet. Denounce these people, denounce Counter Punch magazine for passing alt-right propaganda as ‘leftist’ to progressives.
Whatever misgivings we may have against Putin and his government (and I have some), the American civilians must stand with the Russian civilians.
Political acts of violence by the right or the left against civilians are acts against humanity by a handful of terrorists in governments, or power seeking groupuscules in the midst of human nations. Direct your political anger and violence at the head of states, if you must act; leave the civilians out of your hatred.
Violence engenders violence. I know it sounds preposterous, but The Buddha supposedly said “love everything, so you may not wish to kill anything”. I may not get to love everything, but I certainly love humanity enough to not want to kill other humans for any ideology. Violence is easy; peace seems ‘unnatural’ to human efforts and unreachable Let’s not fall for the easy. Peace, people, peace. Make it natural for humans to aim at it.
The Washington Post published an interesting article (Inside Trump’s White House, New York moderates spark infighting and suspicion) that shows how Bezos wants readers to see the in-fighting in the Trump administration. Spoiler alert: he doesn’t want you to see the root of the real conflicts. And you should play the Beatles’ song Piggies while reading the article.
Since the primaries last year I have written ( since February) about the divisions in the GOP, the ‘paleo-conservatives’ against the globalists (and about the myth of the billionaire businessman as outsider). The WaPo nor any of the other mainstream media bothered to touch on the issue; they were busy controlling the angry voters (remember them?). Now, just NOW the WaPo touches on what is impossible to hide anymore: that the right-wing political and oligarchy elite is, in the words of that brilliant Beatle,
“clutching fork and knives to eat their bacon”
eating each other, i.e. That’s from George Harrison’s ‘Piggies‘, of course.
Drawing the lines: The “Democrats” in the GOP
The first thing I noticed is that the writers of the article, Philip Rucker and Robert Costa, refer to Bannon and his allies as the “Republican populists”. Naming is one of the most important acts of human consciousness; how we name things determines how we relate to them. Calling Bannon and his faction a “populist” gives the impression that they actually care for the regular people. He’s a populist actually sounds positive; heck, he sides with the regular folks. But does he? Is he really against the big corporate billionaires he has helped put in government? I read many of the readers’ comments; few seem to question the writers (Bezos’) point of view, which portray ideological conflict where there is none. That’s why the naming is important, because the point of view implied in the naming gets to be taken blindly.
The other side of the ‘warring’ faction for Trump’s attention are those “often aligned with Trump’s eldest daughter and his son-in-law…” Wow. Imagine that: Trump’s daughter and son-in-law are NOT in line with him; that’s implied in the description. So those are the two camps! The “moderate” side is with Trump’ son-in-law. Yeah, well, keep reading, please.
Notice, if you read the article, that there is no right-left dichotomy here; that’s too old fashion, right/left, i.e. There can be no right/left in the Trump administration because there is no ‘left’ there, there’s only ‘right’ wing there. Whether ‘paleo-conservatives’, GOP conservatives, or globalists, they are all right-wingers, differing only in wallet-size. But to be meaningful, a political division must imply opposing and contending ideologies, which is lacking here. The article gives as example of ideological battle a traveling decision:
One revealing episode came as Trump weighed where he would travel this past Wednesday following an auto industry event in Michigan.
There’s no meaningful (to us) ideological war at this time there, only a war for power and money.
So, to establish the non-existent meaningful division, the writers give you the line, first line in the article too, that one side of the warring factions is named and “dismissed” by their opponents as “the Democrats“. But there are no “democrats” in Trump’s administration! or around him. There are only right-wingers. The first line in the article is meant to put you in a ‘right-left’ state of mind over a ‘right-left’ division that doesn’t exist in the administration. The so-called “democrats” in the fight, the “liberal‘ side, is made of big globalists. Remember, the “liberals” are “behind” Trump’ son-in-law, who happens to be:
Kushner and Cohn are particularly close with the Cabinet’s industry barons — Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
These are the ‘enemies’ of “populist Bannon”, whom he himself and the other ‘traditional’ ‘faction’ of the GOP (Rubio, etc.) helped put in control of our government. Do you see why it is appropriate to sing Piggies while reading the article?
What, then, is the division and bickering inside the Trump administration about? MONEY, what else?
I say that the main division for political power in the administration comes from big globalist corporations against the interests of the smaller business elite of the GOP. The article touches on this ever so carefully, like walking on eggshells. It’s not only that, but also that the smaller fish in the GOP tank are political bureaucrats in danger of losing their chairs in Congress. Why would they lose their chair? Well, that’s the second leg of this non-dialectical fight.
The Populist Weapon
They are the unnamed, referred to only in reference to who holds them, the “populist” Trump/Bannon. Be clear about this: the term “populist” is a reference to a weapon, a political weapon, i.e. The people who support Trump in a frenzied-cult-like, the angry voters of yesterday, are the ‘populist’ weapon in the hands of these two politicians. That is ALL Trump/Bannon have to hold to power: his ‘deplorables’. These people scare the bejesus out of EVERYBODY! They are the reason the GOP is divided. Remove them and see Trump/Bannon and the globalists run out like maniacs. No one in their right mind would want these people in direct control of government, precisely because of what they are doing now.
So the power struggle is between factions of the right-wing plutocracy and political bureaucracy for direct control of government. The globalists are fed up with their paid ‘incompetent’ politicians whose interests is holding to their chairs in Congress. The globalists want to run the government directly. Then there are the other globalists, who understand that this is dangerous because it will make the people rise in revolt against them. Then there are the usual GOP politicians, waiting to see how much money they can suck from the globalists in exchange for their support.
The fight described in that article is not a fight for YOU, dear reader. It’s a fight where YOU have been weaponized and used a threat by your own enemies against each other.
We are in the lowest ebb of human society. You who voted directly or indirectly for Trump have succeeded in electing the most amoral men to run our lives. They are fighting for the right to push you out of their way towards total direct domination over the planet.
How long will it take us to remove them from power is yet to be seen.
[I’m currently plea-bargaining with the grammar police over words and composition style transgressions on this post. So please, ignore them transgressions.]
Well, what else is new? That the mainstream media ignored the nation and worldwide women’s protests about various female and non-female issues during the International Women’s Day is NOT news. They never cover women’s political actions, unless it is to smear them with anti-feminism. But there is a twist to this year’s solidarity of the men in the media conglomerate ignoring women: Trump. Consider this:
Supposedly, just supposedly the media is at ‘war’ against Trump; or more correctly, Trump is at war with the media. All over the media is this expressed ‘fear’ of Trump “attacking the freedom of press”. The media is not at war with him, they have never ‘confessed’ to such a subversive attitude against the man they have called ‘lewd, unfit to be president’ and even assigned to him ‘dangerous dictator tendencies’. So you would suppose, thinking logically, i.e., that the men of our media conglomerate would use their powerful communication tools to give a voice to ‘we the people’ who are fighting against the policies the first lewd president is implementing. WRONG.
The twist to Jeff Bezos (WaPo), Carlos Slim (NYT), Rupert Murdoch and all other media-men ignoring the worldwide marches in the International Women’s Day is that they chose to ignore the people most affected by the lewd president at ‘war’ with the media. There is no coincidence of ALL of them at unison ignoring the women’s protests: it is intentional. OK. So it is irrational to expect that the men of the oligarchy would give women a space in their world. If you agree with that statement, then, why aren’t you organizing against them?
Women are the ‘bogey-man’ of the men in the oligarchy, and of most men in general, which brings me to the next twist in the men solidarity in ignoring the Women’s Day: the men in the left. Consider this also:
The usual leftists-suspects totally ignored the Women’s Day: Black Agenda Report and Counter Punch. TOTAL SILENCE about the women’s protests. And the few leftist organizations at the march in NYC, well, they were pushing economic issues. These organizations are opportunistically using women’s anger to push non-women’s issues. The chants during the march about violence against women and women’s health care issues were coming from non-organized leftists/non-leftists women.
Women, if you don’t take your cause, which is the cause of humanity, by the horns, your energy will be diffused and used to advance the needs of men. Progress in solving women’s problems benefit men, but men’s issues don’t necessarily benefit women. There in the humanistic nature and importance of organizing women by women. There are MANY men who will join us. There will ALWAYS be free men, men not threatened by women’s determination to not be abused. So, don’t be afraid to call it ‘women organizing women’; men are automatically included. After all, men and women need each other. So, as Lenin said, “what the fuck is to be done?”
There are many things that women can do to advance their economic and political goals, but I think this one is an IMPERATIVE (yes, I had to emphasize it): COALITION BUILDING.
Don’t be afraid of the phrase ‘feminist movement’
The media, leftists and mainstream, have succeeded in turning the phrase ‘feminist movement’ into a pejorative term. Yes, the 1960s and 1970s women’s movement made many errors, but NO ONE IS PERFECT. Humans have been making mistakes since the day they started walking erect: men have killed each other by the millions since they learned to use their thumbs. Their first mistake was using it to grab…weapons. I’m sure you saw ‘2001 A Space Odyssey‘: men had the idea of the Pentagon cooking since those days. (If you can’t find humor there, I’m sorry for you.)
So, should women stop trying to organize just because mistakes were made 40 or 50 years ago? The labor movement has practically disappeared for the same reasons; should we not revive it? Young women must understand that it is their time to make mistakes: it is their time to carry the movement forward, with mistakes and all.
The women’s and the labor movements are not lost causes; many good things came out from them.
But today, there’s no ‘leftists’ movement to give impetus to the women’ struggle: women are today’s revolutionary force.
So, put all those groups out there (the lecture groups, the pussy hat groups, the leftist groups…) under one umbrella to serve as your collective voice. Coalitions preserve each group’s interests and actions, it serve to give a sense of unity in the common goals.
From there, women can create a Manifesto of goals to be pushed against the power that be. To force politicians to adopt policies we need, etc.
Today’s women’s political energies will not last long unless they find ways to overcome the divisions and complaints against each other. There is elitism, there is racism EVERYWHERE and forever. Women must learn to work from different perspective, coming together united in what they share. Find it. SOON.
You need to be ready for the next presidential election.