Re: [Marxism] Popular Front

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Charles Brown:
> Also, rarely (never ?) do I see an overall strategy spelledout on how
> radicals will build a movement today completely outside the DP.  There is an
> obligation to project in more detail exactly how the anti-DP mass movement
> will be developed.

The left should have supported Nader and Camejo in 2004, not John Kerry. 
That is about as spelled out as you can get. Here are the two strategies 
side by side:

Counterpunch Weekend Edition
March 27 / 28, 2004
Marxists for Kerry
Stop Bush; Move Forward

By JOEL WENDLAND

"When will it end?" asks my long-time friend and Nader supporter Tom --. 
"When will the cycle of supporting the lesser evil Democrat against the 
vicious, corrupt Republicans end in our liberation from the two-party 
trap?" I'm not in the business of predicting the future much so I shrug. I 
support the lesser of two evils philosophy and will vote for Kerry and will 
encourage others to do likewise; even more so, I will campaign for his 
election on November 2.

This has been a source of deep-rooted contention and near bare-knuckle 
brawling between Tom and I for several years now.

"I know that our immediate interest lies in making sure a sexist, 
homophobic, racist anti-union, war monger isn't allowed to keep office," I 
chime in.

"And Kerry's better?"

"Yes. I think he is more open to popular influence."

full: http://www.counterpunch.org/wendland03272004.html

===

THE AVOCADO DECLARATION

INTRODUCTION

The Green Party is at a crossroads. The 2004 elections place before us a 
clear and unavoidable choice. On one side, we can continue on the path of 
political independence, building a party of, by and for the people by 
running our own campaign for President of the United States. The other 
choice is the well-trodden path of lesser evil politics, sacrificing our 
own voice and independence to support whoever the Democrats nominate in 
order; we are told, to defeat Bush.

The difference is not over whether to "defeat Bush" - understanding by that 
the program of corporate globalization and the wars and trampling of the 
Constitution that come with it - but rather how to do it. We do not believe 
it is possible to defeat the "greater" evil by supporting a shamefaced 
version of the same evil. We believe it is precisely by openly and sharply 
confronting the two major parties that the policies of the corporate 
interests these parties represent can be set back and defeated.

Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign exposed a crisis of confidence in 
the two party system. His 2.7 million votes marked the first time in modern 
history that millions voted for a more progressive and independent 
alternative. Now, after three years of capitulation by the Democratic Party 
to George Bush they are launching a pre-emptive strike against a 2004 Ralph 
Nader campaign or any Green Party challenge. Were the Greens right to run 
in 2000? Should we do the same in 2004? The Avocado Declaration based on an 
analysis of our two party duopoly, and its history declares we were right 
and we must run.

ORIGINS OF THE PRESENT TWO-PARTY SYSTEM

History shows that the Democrats and Republicans are not two counterposed 
forces but rather complimentary halves of a single two-party system: "one 
animal with two heads that feed from the same trough," as Chicano leader 
Rodolfo "Corky" González explained.

Since the Civil War a peculiar two party political system has dominated the 
United States. Prior to the Civil War a two-party system existed reflecting 
opposing economic platforms. Since the Civil War a shift occurred. A 
two-party system remained in place but no longer had differing economic 
orientation. Since the Civil War the two parties show differences in their 
image, role, social base and some policies but in the last analysis they 
both support essentially similar economic platforms.

This development can be clearly dated to the split in the Republican Party 
of 1872 where one wing merged with the "New Departure" Democrats that had 
already shifted towards the Republican platform of pro- finance and 
industrial business. Prior to the Civil War the Democratic Party controlled 
by the slaveocracy favored agriculture business interests, developed an 
alliance with small farmers in conflict with industrial and some commercial 
interests. That division ended with the Civil War. Both parties supported 
financial and industrial business as the core of their programmatic outlook.

For over 130 years the two major parties have been extremely effective in 
preventing the emergence of any mass political formations that challenge 
their political monopoly. Most attempts to build political alternatives 
have been efforts to represent the interests of the average person, the 
working people. These efforts have been unable to develop. Both major 
parties have been dominated by moneyed interests and today reflect the 
historic period of corporate rule.

In this sense United States history has been different from that of any 
other advanced industrial nation. In all other countries multi party 
systems have appeared and to one degree or other they have more democratic 
electoral laws and more representation has existed. In almost all other 
cases political parties ostensible based on or promoting the interest of 
non-corporate sectors such as working people exist.

full: http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20040103164827635.html 


________________________________________________
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