I mejlen idag fick jag veta att den amerikanska socialdemokratiska tidskriften Dissent har startat en ny gruppblogg som de kallar Arguing the World. I det första inlägget beskrivs ATW som:
” a blog that will transcend borders and oceans, sects and parties. Our choice of comrades is transatlantic, and our arguments will be with those at home and abroad, on the right and on the left. Over the years, Dissent has become a platform for a breed of utopianism that has been, at once, democratic and radical, connected and cosmopolitan; and it is this vision of a grounded, worldly utopianism that will be a guiding spirit for our blog.”
Det kan bli spännande.
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om dissent, arguing the world, blogg, usa, socialdemokrati
I den amerikanska socialdemokratiska tidskriften Dissent lämnar redaktionen förslag på hur Barack Obama ska använda sina första hundra dagar som president. I amerikansk politik talar man ofta om just de första hundra dagarna som den period en ny president har att sätta tonen på sin ämbetstid. Uttrycket kommer från Franklin D Roosevelts seger i presidentvalet 1932 och sjösättningen av hans ”nya giv”.
Ett lästips från senaste numret av den amerikanska socialdemokratiska tidskriften Dissent. Ignacio Walker, tidigare utrikesminister i Chile skriver om Latinamerikas tre typer av vänster (populism, marxism och socialdemokrati). Framförallt skriver han om populismens olika ansikten under det senaste seklet. Och det är kanske där som hans artikel är intressant, även om han till viss del presenterar den som ett försvar för en socialdemokratisk vänster i Latinamerika.
”Although I have been critical of neopopulism, I don’t want to lose sight of its roots. In fact, one could say that populism is not the real problem in Latin America; the real problem is the persistence of poverty and inequality and the decomposition of traditional political institutions and elites. Above all, what we have learned in our recent and not-so-recent history is that there are no short cuts on the path toward development and democracy, and populism is precisely, almost by definition, a short cut: the promise of immediate satisfaction of social demands. …
A less visible, less strident, and less heroic, but perhaps more successful way forward is opening in Latin America. The program of the new social democratic left seeks to move ahead simultaneously in the direction of political democracy, economic growth, and social equity. It represents a nonpopulist response to the neoliberal economic politics of the 1990s. This path may be less epic than the others that have been tried in the waves of authoritarianism and democracy that have characterized the political history of Latin America, and it may be a long and sometimes tortuous one, but at least it guarantees that it will be the people, democratic citizens, through deliberation, negotiation, compromise, and consensus-building, who will have the final say in the public realm.”
Det finns gott om kommentarer ute på nätet om vad Barack Obamas seger kan innebära. Den amerikanska socialdemokratiska tidskriften Dissent har flera stycken, bland annat av redaktören och samhällsfilosofen Michael Walzer som verkar vara inne på samma linje som jag. Rörelsen som förde Obama till makten är också viktig för att kunna föra politiken till vänster. Liksom de ekonomiska förutsättningarna:
”Once Obama starts to govern, charisma will not be enough; he will need the support of organized and mobilized constituencies. So we may see the development of movement politics, as we did in the 1930s and ‘60s, not during but after the election campaign. Obama will need political mobilization outside the Beltway—in the fight for national health care, for a more egalitarian (realistically, a less regressive) tax system, and for new policies on energy, education, immigration, and international trade. One of the first tests of his presidency will be his readiness and ability to stimulate a movement politics that doesn’t depend on the charisma of one man, but is grounded on a coherent program for social change.
He will be, I think (and hope), a more radical president than he wants to be. He has run, smartly, from the center; he has spoken well against the bitter partisanship of Washington politics these last eight years; he aspires to unite a racially divided nation. But the deepening recession will push him (as it pushed Roosevelt, another centrist) to adopt policies that will be fiercely opposed on the right.”
