Re: [Marxism] The criticism of religion[was:RE:Vnzla:reasonstobeoptimistic]

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Haines Brown wrote:
> On the other hand, if I lived in Germany in 1935, I believe it would
> be fairly easy to show that the Party's program to salvage capitalism
> entailed methods that were not only illegal and immoral, but
> ultimately doomed, and that Hitler was imbalanced (much more seriously
> than Bush) (the bourgois German press had many articles on how Hitler
> was stupid, irrational, and a real danger going all the way back to
> the late 20s), and the Party had significant (although often indirect
> and not always effective) control over the local branches.

Maybe Hitler wouldn't have come to power if the CP hadn't supported a 
Nazi referendum to unseat a Social Democratic politician.

> No, unless I get picky, of course not. But the discussion is of the
> Democratic Party in the US, which has a completely different history
> and political culture. If the barricades were up and if a viable
> progressive movement were in the lead, that of course that would
> change things. But these are counterfactuals. I was thinking of
> militant demonstrations as have occurred in the US, such as over the
> Vietnam War and Civil Rights. These had as their aim the rectification
> of the capitalist system, and as a result of their success, the system
> acquired greater legitimacy and co-opted more serious challenges.

All reforms are meant to "rectify" the capitalist system. But there are 
effective and ineffective ways to achieve them. For example, support for 
a peace candidate in 1964 was not very productive, was it? LBJ ignored 
the peace-loving members of the DP and went to war anyhow. When you have 
an independent antiwar movement that is not beholden to any bourgeois 
politician, it is more effective. Our problem today, of course, is that 
the largest antiwar coalition is led by politicos who would have 
advocated a vote for LBJ in 1964.

> However, you apparently presume that such a progressive agenda is
> within the reach of the Green party, but not the Democratic
> Party.  

That's right. This is based on an analysis of the post-1970s capitalist 
economy, which is driven by cutthroat competition between the US and its 
rivals. As Bill Clinton said in describing his DP, "we are all 
Eisenhower Republicans". By comparison to Clinton, Nixon was a second 
coming of FDR. To hell with all of them, I say.

> Also worth noting is that not a single point in Camejo's plan
> threatens the capitalist system; they only aim to reform and thus
> strengthen that system. By voting for Cameja (which I'm assuming is a
> good thing to do), are you therefore implicitly "supporting" the
> capitalist system? 

Actually, to strengthen the capitalist system today involves attacks on 
single-payer type health plans as well as all the other safety nets 
associated with the New Deal. The Democrats want to "reform" Social 
Security, have already dismantled welfare, etc. Now there are Democrats 
who say that they are opposed to this and attack the Green Party for 
being spoilers. They function like the "outside man" in 3 card monty.






________________________________________________
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