Diary of a Walking Butterfly

I’m not a West Virginian. I’m not an Appalachian. I’ve lived in West Virginia for a little over a year, but I’m from New York. Why do I care what happens to a mountain in southern West Virginia? If you’re not an Appalachian and have already been appealed to about saving Blair, that might have [...]

If you’re a liberal and you watched the State of the Union address, you probably heard a lot of things that sounded really logical and progressive. We can all agree, though, that politics is the art of deception. That being said, let’s take a look at the real ramifications of Obama’s proposed plan for the [...]

When Rachel first told me she wanted a lethargic, overweight cat named “Carl” I thought it was funny and cute. When she said she wanted a dog named “Karl Barx” it set off a chain of clever pet names. Everything from a pony named “Leon Trotsky” to “Rosa Luxembird“. We began assigning animals to all our favorite comrades and it wasn’t too long before we realized that this was the seed of a cute children’s book.

From there, “Karl” was born. Karl is an orphan kitten very loosely based on Karl Marx. He gets swept up by a couple of cats who run a food cartel – shipping out orphan kittens to rummage through garbage for the good stuff. In classic capitalist fashion, the cats keep the tuna for themselves and leave the scraps to the kitties. Karl bans together with Leon, Emma, Rosa, Freddie and others to overthrow the cats and establish a democratic alley where all cats and kittens can participate and feast.

This is more than just a silly exercise in Marxist idiosyncrasy. The United States lacks an understanding or awareness of Left history – especially our youth. A quick (though not exhaustive) Google search and scan through the Marxist Internet Archives showed that there are no (to our knowledge) explicitly Leftist, contemporary children’s books. We hope that “Karl” will be one small contribution to cultivating a generation with the tools and resources to critically analyze history, society and capitalism.

You can support our project here.

And read updates here.

For More: “If Mccain Had Won” Fred Branfman “Liberal” is a label that many people wear proudly. Being liberal is an identity that has become much more about what it’s not than what it is, though. The Right, having used “liberal” as a four letter word, has effectively coaxed people into openly adopting the label [...]

This post, I think, is timely. With the upcoming anniversary of the March on Blair Mountain, recent flagrant attacks on labor and impending ecological crisis (of which coal extraction and use is no small part), it seems only fitting to delve into a bit of history. The Whipple Company Store is just one of the many places where we can clearly see the intersection of various oppressions – sexism, racism, capitalist exploitation and the destruction of our environment.

Well, of course they appropriated control. What did I expect them to do? Corporate unions, especially the AFL-CIO, run with the big dogs. They wine and dine with the Democrats and sell out their rank-and-file. That’s what they do. Silly of me to expect otherwise.

Still, though, they gave the impression that we would still be in control of organizing the rally. They wanted two or three Democratic gubernatorial candidates to speak, and I conceded that much so long as our promised speakers could remain on the list.

“Everything in moderation.”

Citizens of the United States love to be “moderate”. It’s considered a tradition and virtue to avoid “excesses” (politically, at least) for a large portion of the population. Even those with fairly radical ideas are intensely reserved in their tactics and strategies regarding how to bring about the changes they wish to see.

Working class folk who make 50k annually call themselves “middle class”.

Party pandering voters call for the “middle ground”, “compromise”, and consider themselves “moderates”.

This conundrum is not only frustrating, but also contradictory. So-called “moderates” do not want a moderate amount of exploitation. They don’t want a moderate amount of justice. They don’t call for a moderate amount of state violence and repression (well, at least I don’t think they do). They comprehend the definitively good and bad aspects of society in radical, totalistic ways.

We want zero hunger and poverty. We want absolute justice. We want no exploitation.

These are measures that are not ones that can be brought about through moderate amounts of political pressure. Period.

Finding The Middle

Where is “the middle”, anyway?

Not too long ago, the idea of cutting taxes on the upper-class, freezing everything but “defense” (read: offense) related spending, “freeing” up markets and expanding the military-industrial complex would have been considered rightwing. Today, though, as Obama does all of the aforementioned he’s at best considered a “moderate” and at worst considered a “socialist” in the mainstream.

The point is – where is the “middle” that “moderates” are looking for? Is it the new middle or the middle they remember from the first time they recognized that there was a middle?

That’s the thing – the middle isn’t concrete. It doesn’t exist independently of history. It doesn’t operate outside the influence of public opinion, policy trends, and the economic climate.

If this is the case, then do these so-called moderates have convictions, or are they fixated on the middle, wherever that middle may take them? I imagine they do have convictions, are not pleased with the middle (wherever it may be), and cling to the cult of moderation for any number of reasons – not the least of which is appearance. Moderation appears sensible, respectable, and intelligent.

Shifting Center

The center has shifted profoundly to the right. The cause of this has not been moderation, but a radical and unified conviction to rightwing ideals. The solution will not be compromise and centrism, but a radical and unified conviction to leftist ideals.

There are a number of problems and misconceptions that have contributed to the Left losing ground in the U.S. These include lapdog loyalty to party politicians regardless of merit, never-ending compromise with an uncompromising Right, and a crippling obsession with process and belief in the legitimacy of government.

Many progressives decided that the way to advance their agenda was to squeeze as tightly to Obama and Democrats as possible. To hug them tightly and smother them with affection. To rebut any and all criticism and to explain away their failures and missteps.

On the other hand – rightwingers spent their time running as far away from Obama as possible and calling to him from the horizon. “Look how far to the left he is!”, “Socialist!”, “Where’s the birthcertificate!?”.

Obama had no motivation to shift to the left – his base so snugly wrapped about his waist and clinging to his legs like children who miss their parents. Even if he wanted to shift to the left (which I entirely doubt), he had no room to move. He couldn’t move to the left – there were too many people suffocating and smothering him. Naturally – in a political maneuver to appear moderate and recoup any independent supporters – he and the Democrats shifted significantly to the right.

This is not to say that any faith should be put in the Democratic party or the Obama administration. This is to say that party politics have a great deal of impact on the mainstream political climate, which is indispensable to advancing any political agenda.

We shouldn’t fear polarization, because polarization is inevitable – especially with an uncompromising right who will stop at nothing to make even conservative Democrats look like communists. No matter how much we compromise and shift to occupy the center, the Right will continuously to move twice as far – they will continuously gain ground and continuously ask for more “moderation”.

What we need is conviction.

What we need is absolute justice and absolutely no exploitation – and the way to do that is to recognize our role in shaping the political norms that determine policy. Moreover, we must recognize that even the most progressive policy is insufficient. That it is merely a medium-term goal in the struggle for a revolutionary transformation of our society.