Thoughts on production, alienation, and ideology
Many Americans talk about politics in confused ways. The confusion comes from a variety of missteps they make along the way. But one central political mistake stands out to me. It’s the one mistake most people make – even most leftists. And it holds together many of the others.
What’s that mistake, you ask?
When I started this blog, I listed baseball among the topics it would cover. I even included a tag for baseball on the side. But why baseball, on a politics blog?
Really, though, why not?
Sure, this is a blog about politics. But it’s also my blog. And baseball means a lot to me.
For one, baseball means childhood for me. It means the joys and struggles of childhood. I played competitive baseball in some form from about age 5 into my teenage years. It took up a key part of my summer from kindergarten until high school. And, of course, I spent much of that time watching a distant relative play on TV.
Baseball meant triumph and heartbreak. I put all my time into playing, and yet, at times, I shied away from it. Notoriously I would take myself out of games when the pressure became too great or I didn’t feel like I was playing at my best. But I always worked hard to be the best pitcher I could be.
I put in the work to win, but I always feared losing. Or embarrassing myself, or even getting struck by the ball when I stepped up to the plate as a hitter.
Finally, baseball means, to me, childhood in all its complexity and wonder. The facets of the game – the rules, the plays and possibilities, the stats, and the mental battle between pitcher and batter – all appealing to me.
Even today, baseball is the game for me. It’s the only sport that ever felt like mine. I watched many sports as a kid. But baseball was my sport.
I have to admit that, at times, I still imagine myself out there playing.
I’m proud to say I’ve got quite an eclectic mix of books for the reading list this month! But I’m less to proud to say that most of the books are from mainstream political and academic figures.
What can I say? With an election coming up, I’ve had the desire to do a bit of reading in mainstream politics and society. Maybe I can pick up some reasons why people do the things they do?
I’ll certainly take understanding over imitation.
In a recent issue of Catalyst, William Avilés and Earlen Gutierrez take up a classic leftist topic. But it’s one that seems to have left the stage decades ago. In short, should the left organize soldiers?
The question left the stage, in part, because of a shift in the base and cultural politics of the left. As the socialist left turned away from organizing, it lost the connections with working class Americans it had built as recently as the 1950s and 1960s. And since the progressives were always grounded in a relatively wealthy and highly educated base, they never had much contact with the sorts of people who become soldiers.
So, the left removed itself from the stage. And the progressives moved in a different direction.
But let’s return to the question. I think it can bring a certain focus.
A couple years ago, I listened to the Russian Revolution season of Mike Duncan’s podcast Revolutions. Readers might recall that I had a few things to say about the podcast when tsk-tsking Duncan about Marx on profit.
In fact, I think it’s overall a great podcast. And I listened to it again, this time hitting all seasons and not just the one on Russia.
As I listened to how the various revolutions strayed off course, I thought about how their leaders engaged with the population. That is to say, I thought about how the revolutionaries related to the average person in these societies. I especially thought about this in light of the French and Russian Revolutions, two revolutions that featured at least some conception of a society built in the interests of the people as a whole.
© 2024 Base and Superstructure
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
