[Marxism] Earl Browder

["Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Lause _

I cited what the Democratic party had done from the 1820s through the
1920s, and Charles refutes it by talking about the 1930s and dismissing
the rest as conflating.

^^^^
CB: Your citation conflated a lot of stuff together that doesn't go
together. The Democratic Party was a party of slaveowners from the 1820's to
1860.  In that period, radicals formed a united front witht the _Republican_
Party at one point.  The CP of the 1930's could point to that as a
counterexample of radicals working successfully with a bourgeois party in
the U.S. from the time you mentioned.

Then you ignore the success of the New Deal in the 1930's itself.

^^^^

He conflates the 1860s--an era of BOURGEOIS REVOLUTION in which the
bourgeoisie could still move the world forward--with the 1930s in which
the biggest innovations of the bourgeoisie involved death camps....

^^^^^
CB: You conflate the 1820's , a period when slaveowners were the ruling
class in the U.S., with the 1930's a time of state monopoly capitial's rule,
finance capital AND when the Great October Revolution has shaken the world.

^^^^^

Related...in this earlier period, it wasn't a question of "working with the
Republican Party" in the 1850s and 1860s.  The continuity of radicalism in
those days were in the ideas not the organizations were which are
short-lived and mostly misunderstood and mythologized later. The reality is
that we--Marxists, socialists, radicals generally--WERE Republicans.

^^^^
CB: So what WERE we in the 1820's ?

^^^^


 We had kicked off the Republicans as a third party
movement and contributed much to building it into something capable of
breaking through the duopoly of the Democrats and Whigs.  We did this
because we saw organizations as performing specific functions
historically and not as churches with all the answers.

^^^^
CB: Strawman. Sideswiping slander. CP of 30's didn't see organizations as
churches.

Historically inaccurate: Many radicals in 1800's were church based.
Abolitionists, revolutionaries of period, were mostly in churches.

^^^^^

People who do well to learn from that history and stop bullshitting
about it...

^^^^
CB; You need to take these words to heart yourself.

^^^^^

Radicals had learned that the point is to change the real world, not to
be correct in some abstract academic way without reference to the world.

^^^^^
CB: You might try that too.

^^^^

Radicals in those days understood the value and continuity of ideas and
had little sentimentality bout organizations and associations.  Today,
some radicals have since opted for the more easily traced continuity of
what amounts to club memberships.

Radicals in those days knew that you couldn't damage slavery by voting
for Democratic and Whig parties that sustained the institution.  Today,
some radicals have convinced themselves that we will get what we want by
voting for people and parties that oppose what we want, in the
particular issues as in the general structure of civilization.

^^^^^
CB: Talk about bullshitting and platitudes

^^^


But all of the CPUS logic in supporting the party of segregation in the
1930s could have applied just as well to supporting the same party a
century earlier when it was sustaining slavery.

Shed the delusions!

Solidarity!
Mark L.

^^^^^^
CB: CPUSA's logic was concrete. The world had a fundamental difference in
1930's as compared with all the periods you conflate in with the 1930's: The
Great October Revolution had taken place. From a Marxist standpoint that
creates a qualitatively different historical situation from the world of 19
Century radicals.





________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism