Re: [Marxism] Thecriticismofreligion[was:RE:Vnzla:reasonstobeoptimistic]

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Owen Davies wrote:
> 
> Quick reply, Mark.
> 
> > The Democratic Party is a party not a popular front.  You might, indeed,
> > find it "helpful" to call it one because you believe it "permissible to
> > enter popular fronts, fight for a socialist programme," etc., etc., etc.
> >
> As a party though it does seem quite loose.  More of a loose alliance which
> in the past has probably been a strength but could prove to be an Achilles
> Heel in the future.

You still don't understand Mark's point. The (passive)
SUPPORTERSOF/VOTERSFOR the DP can be seen as loosely allied in their
(PASSIVE) consumption of the party. The party itself is not loose at all
but probably more controlled than the RP or even the CPUSA is. This is
true down to the County level. For a year or so back in 88/89 I attended
the meetings of the McLean County Democratic Committee. You could no
more have affected that institution (from outside or inside) than you
could eat the Empire State Building for breakfast. That structure, for
example, selects which candidates are "serious" and which are "mere ego
trips," and all the media follow. 

You can affect _voters_ for the DP in the same way that you can affect
_customers_ for General Motors, but you  can't affect either the DP or
GM. There is no way you can join the DP even if you want to, any more
than you can join GM (unless you have a few spare billions).

Carrol


________________________________________________
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