RE: [Marxism] RE: the always correct Ted Glick

["Mark Lause" <MLause@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think this piece actually does reflect Ted Glick's position.  He
sincerely seems to think that the Greens emerged from 2004 with "gains."


The Cobb nomination grew from the institutionally self-destructive
weighing of delegations that represented virtually nothing in terms of
their base.  This was a major way in which third parties destroyed
themselves.  Beneath the figleaf of a local focus is the reality that
that insurgencies that remain local are all more easily assimilated.

In the end, once a party leadership demonstrates its willingness to
betray the membership and divert votes into a major party, it tends to
hurt its argument for people to join and help build that party. It
wouldn't even matter if they persuaded all of us critics agreed to jump
into a hot tub with Cobb, link arms and sing Kumbaya....

With all credit and respect to those who actually have organizations and
sustain them, the Greens will have to be almost entirely reorganized--or
more accurately, organized in the first place--since they were not eally
organized nationally, nor in most of the states in which they claim
parties, nor in most communities where such is claimed.

Best,
Mark L.



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism