Re: [Marxism] 2004 [Was: What are the Greens...]

["Mark Lause" <MLause@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David is correct in saying "As far as I know, no Green organization ever sat
down and stated/voted/decided 'Lets call for a vote for the Democrats'."

That's what the Populists and Progressives eventually did.  It's what many
Socialists did and do.  It's what the CP does.  It's what "support the
Democrats" means....  And the Greens don't do it.

As to the other point, campaigns do take time, money, effort, and the GPUS
is miniscule in most states and has to make choices.  I'm sure that some of
these reflect exactly what David says it is...a desire not to confront the
Democrats.  Indeed, I suspect that each choice not to run a campaign may
reflect just such a desire on the part of some people making the decision.

However, nobody proposes this as a motive for not running.  Generally
speaking, people join the GP to support Greens not Democrats.  If you want
to support the latter, what's the point in joining the Greens?  In a party
position, we must conjecture about secret motives or dabble in reading
minds.

David's understanding of 2004 is simply incorrect...as is Bonnie's.  We
agree, as David indicated, that the GPUS did not support Kerry.  Picking
David Cobb in preference to Peter Camejo, who ran for the nomination as a
stand-in for Ralph Nader, was not "the next best thing" to backing the
Democrats.  As near as I could tell, he bulk of the GPUS was whipped into a
nice hissy fit that Nader did not want to ask for the nomination himself.
Worse, they decided that it would best "build the party" to select one of
their own to run for president.  Notwithstanding some interesting games with
representation, which I've addressed at great length elsewhere, the Cobb
option was wrong for reasons that had little to do with the Democrats....
If the truth be told, the GP erred in making this nomination because it was
the same kind of organizationally inbred sectarianism characteristic of the
SLP, the SP, SWP, the WWP, the PFP, etc., etc., etc.

Nor did the GPUS convention choose that "safe state strategy" represent "the
next best thing" to a Democratic nomination.  The party itself did not adopt
or endorse this wrong-headedness.  Those who did embraced it as what I would
call a cowardly attempt to avoid the criticisms of 2000 that the campaign
had helped elect Bush over Gore...not as a means of helping Kerry win the
election.

In fact, as I've pointed out, Socialist Party people in 2004 attacked the
Nader-Camejo campaign as both insufficiently radical (because it wasn't
explicitly socialist) and dangerously likely to contribute to Bush's
reelection.  So, apparently the GPUS had nobody more conservative as
insurgents than we'd find supporting the SP ticket.

As to 2008, there will be a broad insurgent campaign.  It will be stronger
and broader than would otherwise be the case if it's based in the GPUS...and
more likely to have a more long term impact.  To the extent that this is not
the case...that the GPUS decides to follow the sectarian and opportunistic
course it adopted in 2004--or that the "Marxist" Left decides to insist on
political purism--we will all be the weaker.

Solidarity!
Mark L.







________________________________________________
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