Re: [Marxism] Reply to Carl Davidson

["ameritech acoount" <stansmith44@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to Julio Huato: Whatever Carl Davidson might say to rationalize his 
support to the Democratic party,the fact is that he wholeheartedly supports 
Democrats. There is no evidence that hereaches out to the anti- DP/RP 
anti-imperialist movement here in Chicago in order tobuild a new independent 
political force. He does not orient towards building an independentmovement, 
but only of pressuring the Democrats, and for settling for a winnable 
candidate.He is no different than Kucinich, but with a lot less influence and a 
lot more hot air.We do, after all, have to look at what a person does more than 
what he says.Davidson is as wedded to the Democratic party as the CP is. If 
anything, Louis Proyect isa little mild on his criticisms of Davidson. Being 
here in Chicago, Davidson's role is not to build a broad anti-right wing 
movement, but rather he self-proclaimed role is to pullthe rug from under the 
independent anti-war, anti-imperialist movement whenever possible. Julio is a 
little silly about talking about "cooperating" with the Democratic Party.Is 
there some kind of "cooperation agreement" you think we anti-imperialists have 
not signed on to for some ultra-left or sectarian reason? Why doesn't Julio 
post here whatthis "cooperation agreement" that was reached with the Democratic 
party? The DP does notneed to or want to "cooperate" with you or Davidson. The 
only cooperation they know is yoursurrender of your political agenda.  People 
like Julio put Marxists in the position of having to attack the Democratic 
Party,and it makes us seem like we attack Democrats and not Republicans. There 
are some in bothparties who do progressive and courageous things, like our old 
Illinois Republican governor George Ryan, like Robert Byrd too. But both 
parties carry out the dictates of US big business,and the only cooperating the 
Democrats are doing, and have been doing since Clinton was elected,is with the 
Republicans, in carrying out the Republican agenda. Kerry just tagged along 
after Bush and said he could carry out Bush's agenda more effectively than 
Bush. Clinton was more original and stole the Republican agenda and carried it 
out more effectively than they themselves were able to do. For having that 
gall, they punished him.   The only Marxists who submerge themseselves in the 
Democratic partylike Julio and Davidson advocate are those Marxists who hve a 
seriousmisunderstanding of what Marxism is. Marx was bluntly clear on this 
going back to at least 1850.Stan SmithMark Lause wrote:

> Even putting the most pragmatic and non-ideological spin possible on
> dealings with the Democrats, any support accorded them as they are
> galloping full speed to the right will always be interpreted as support
> for that dynamic.

Why?  

It depends on *which* policies you "support" and *how* you "support"
them.  In principle, we should NEVER "support" the Democrats in
general.  That certainly would be the same as renouncing to all
political independence.  (I had never before read anything written by
Carl Davidson, but what I can read from him on these exchanges cannot
be construed as "supporting" the DP in general.  Only if we start with
a prejudice against his views, we can interpret his statements that
way.)

We should fight the fights that need to be fought in the interest of
the working people, the fights that will increase their unity,
self-education, organization, and militancy.  And, in so doing, we
should cooperate (at least not clash) with *anybody* whose actions
intersect with ours -- regardless of intentions.  And particularly so
when the actions of that *anybody* can have some real impact.  And
that *includes the DP*.

For example, we must defend Social Security from Bush's assault.  What
is the largest political force leading or at least most outspoken in
the public defense of Social Security?  The DP.  Or some members of
the DP.  Or some people who tend to support the DP.  Or people who,
although not trusting the DP, take for granted the need to act in
unity with the DP in defense of Social Security.

In the face of this, should we focus our activity on widening and
strengthening the defense of Social Security, or should we rather
focus it on exposing how the positions of a particular prominent
member of the DP (or, worse, a minor member of the DP or, worst,
somebody *on the left* who might be suspect of "supporting" the DP)
are too hedged, weak, or inconsistent?

I'd say that our focus should be on adding, not on subtracting.  And
that we should use that concrete struggle to leverage our independent
organizational and educational effort, defeat those who want to
dismantle Social Security, and gain more than those who defend Social
Security for reasons other than the interests of workers.

> More broadly, there can be no real question that the Democratic Party is
> not only an asset of corporate capitalism but the primary generator of
> illusions among progressives.  Those who know it for what it is are
> under some obligation to apply the label clearly in a way that it will
> stick.

Illusions don't just float on the air.  Illusions are rooted on social
conditions.  If the focus of our struggle is on fighting against
illusions that are deeply rooted in the social conditions, then we're
wasting our time.  As Lenin used to say, we have to look for the link
that, if pulled, can drag the whole chain.

The main problem nowadays is not *the illusion* of a "liberal"
capitalist America.  The main problem is *the reality* of a
militaristic, aggressive, decadent America able to lash out lethally
against the rest of the world and to turn itself into a vicious quasi-
or proto-fascist society under the guise of Christian religiosity.

The illusion of a "decent, liberal America," whether it'll prove to be
such or not, cannot be our main target.  Any U.S. person who lives off
her work and, under the illusion of a decent, liberal U.S. society,
struggles to defend Social Security and opposes the occupation of Iraq
is my sister or brother for the time being.  And anybody who fosters
enmity between us is not helping.

> Those who don't know what it is--or don't care because they think the
> Republicans are worse--are part of the problem, not the solution.

What the DP is and will be hasn't been decided once and for all.  Like
any social structure, the DP is no solid crystal.  So I happen to
think the exact opposite as Mark's: that those who don't see the
differences between the Democrats and the Republicans are part of the
problem.  I have given detailed arguments in defense of this view --
arguments that have not been refuted.

> Nor should we forget that most qualified voters don't vote and most who
> do vote have the good sense to hold their noses when they do.  The same
> can't be said for DP apologists.

It is a cheap shot to accuse people in the left who advocate for
punctual cooperation with the DP as "DP apologists" or epithets of the
sort.  The only "argument" I've always been given in reply to my views
is that the DP is bad, that it's been bad historically, and that will
be bad in the future.  As I said, I take all that for granted.  The
fact that people believe that such argument is *sufficient* to reject
any cooperation with the DP only shows that most of the opposition to
cooperating with the DP among leftists is pre-rational.

Julio

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