Rationalization versus theoretical explanation: gibberish marks the spot!

If you want to study the art of rationalization–more importantly, if you want to distinguish rationalization from theoretical elaboration–there’s no better place right now than reading the volumes of crap pumped out by half-assed radicals endorsing Bernie Sanders. They pumped the same crap out about George McGovern & Jesse Jackson & actually believe they’re being original. Much of it is petulant, all of it is recycled, most of it is just hilarious.

The magazine New Politics is a cornucopia of the stuff. One writer named Jason Schulman says “It’s an unfortunate fact that class-struggle politics in the electoral arena has become far more complex in the United States than it is anywhere else in the world.” Really!? Even more complex than India that has nearly 2,000 political parties? More complex than Egypt that has one party (the military junta) & if you try to run against it you’ll get put in jail & tortured?

Schulman goes on to explain there are “Democrats who represent the ruling class & Democrats who (imperfectly – they’re very rarely revolutionaries) represent the working class. I see nothing class-collaborationist in opposing the former & (critically) supporting the latter. Yes, ruling class politicians usually win Democratic primaries simply because they raise more campaign funds, have name recognition, & are incumbents, etc. – but not always.” Our man Schulman’s got all the lingo down but he’s still talking through his ass. Presumably he thinks Sanders represents the working class & that may be true. But only the most backward, xenophobic, provincial, racist part of the working class. Those who are international in their views, who oppose war, support Black power & immigrant rights think Sanders is a windbag & a loser.

Gibberish is the linguistic hallmark of rationalization. But it’s most rancid character is the xenophobia & racism. And its substitution of maneuvering for politics.

Leave a Reply