Re: [Marxism] sectarian TONC approach to May 1st

["aaron amaral" <amaral1871@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/10/06, Andrew Pollack <acpollack2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am VERY glad it has come up at the steering committee (which I am not  on). 
> But that makes the sectarianism even more criminal. As does the  fact that 
> the initial call appears to have come from a much broader  milieu and already 
> provided the opportunity to build a united front in  NY for May 1st..
>
>   Plus, eventually there will have to be a fight against endorsement of  
> liberal Senate legislation. So far in NY we've been lucky that everyone  has 
> come out against guest worker programs even though the SEIU  nationally has 
> been awful on this and even on the repressive  non-amnesty provisions of the 
> McCain-Kennedy proposals. The last thing  we need is a separate sectarian 
> group upholding radical demands on this  issue, as opposed to a united front 
> where a fight can be held for  principled but inclusive demands.
>

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you viz.  the standard operating
procedure of certain organisations. Is this your point, that TONC
would run around claiming themselves the leadership of what is a
actual existing national united front effort around May first (did you
see the LP posting on Nativo Lopez and Lou Dobbs?)? This seems a minor
quirk but worthy of annoyance.

But it doesn't seem to me that the demands layed out for the first (
there are four basic points - dont have them handy) are radical
demands that are going to scuttle a united front fight against what
comes out of congress. One of the more interesting things about this
dynamic is that the rightwing elements within the movement don't
really even have an 'acceptable'  fall back position because
McCain/Kennedy, as problematic as that was, has been successively
gutted (first by the Specter Committee and then by the  by the
leadership agreement) by the congressional right.

I found it amazing how willing people were, yesterday, to take up the
chant of amnesty even against the pleadings of the liberal leadership.
'Legalisation' on its own is such a weak demand particularly given
that everything that has come out of the senate thus far has some
'path to legalisation' - just not any you would wish your worst enemy
to have to walk (we have different plans for them :) )

-aa

________________________________________________
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