posted 05/20/13
posted 05/8/13
posted 04/29/13
posted 04/29/13
Published bimonthly since 1986, AGAINST THE CURRENT is a Solidarity-sponsored analytical journal for the broad revolutionary left. The May/June 2013 editorial focuses on what is at stake in the decision to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. Malik Miah’s Race and Class column takes up the immigration debate and calls for open borders; Chokwe Lumumba outlines the strategy behind his run for mayor of Jackson, Mississippi. Dan Georgakas paints an overview of the Greek financial crisis and the struggle against their “odious” debt while Maïa Pal recounts the occupation against outsourcing at England’s Sussex University and Jaime Rivera, Secretary of the Sindical de Trabajadores de Sector Electricos in El Salvador explains the latest attempt by Washington and the World Bank to impose another round of privatization. Comics artist Ethan Heitner depicts the great Flint sitdown strike – and more!
answers for my child 2 days 3 hours
Ridiculous Propaganda Article 3 days 14 hours
LaRouche and SDS 4 days 6 hours
Kashmir 1 week 2 days
pleased to see a statement 1 week 3 days
Twitter
YouTube
Facebook
RSS Feed
email:
phone:
mail:
phone:
mail:
Solidarity depends on the generous contributions of its friends and allies to continue its work. Please consider giving!
Not uncritical
David,
I put together this interview and I'm sorry to hear you're disappointed, but I think you're writing this off a little too quickly. First, I would (and did) acknowledge that there are mixed reactions to Binh's ideas--maybe he would be interested in responding. I don't actually agree with many of the particulars of Binh's perspective, but it seems to me that a lot of the socialist left has had trouble really coming to grips with OWS, where the tendency has been to either pick and choose parts of Occupy that one likes, or to accept the movement almost at face value, ditching a lot of socialist ideas and orientations. What I see Binh doing is finding a way to engage with the movement while speaking a language of socialism and making some connections. Agree or disagree, I think this is an important discussion to pay attention to.
That said, I don't take an interview as being automatically uncritical just because I didn't grill him--I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but that would seem uncomradely to start from a point of disagreement. In part, I think readers should be exposed and read this argument on its own terms, think about it and have discussions in available forums (of which this seems a good example).
On the subject of differences, a number of our Solidarity comrades have rooted themselves in Occupy's labor committees, which I think played a very important role (as you said) and Binh does not mention this in his responses. (There are two articles I see in the immediate about OWS and Sotheby's on our site [ http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/3477 and http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/3457 ].) My own opinion is that there is a very interesting dynamic interaction between Occupy and organized labor, though it's also been a strained relationship and something we need to discuss more. Occupy on the West Coast did not have the same positive relationship as in New York City, though the movement is of course in a different place there.
While there are only so many socialists and you need to pick where to be, I think Binh is more or less right in saying that the pattern seems to be that socialists have really only been involved in a small portion of OWS (at least, when it had camps)--whether this is a good or a bad thing is again up for debate: the labor works seems to have been crucial, giving an anchor to OWS early on, with much needed support to keep the camp going, but that work is not visible in the same ways that a lot of the anarchists have been.
Anyway, I hope that clears things up some and smooths things over some.