Re: [Marxism] The fight in the SWP, conclusion (What kind of party we need)

[Craig Brozefsky <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Lause wrote:
> Craig Brozefsky <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This is an assanine analysis . . ..
>>
> 
> I certainly think that Craig should yield to no one in asserting his
> expertise in the realm of making an "assanine" analysis and in
> recognizing politically dead organizations.  After all, his earlier
> tirades berated the list for failing to take serious the Socialist
> Party campaign of Brian Moore.  After all, as a mass force, the SP has
> been comatose for decades, while the GPUS is merely coughing up blood
> and continuing to smoke three packs a day....

I knew Mark would make this fun and spice up the slow days before the 
end of the year...

Moore got on television, Colbert Report and others venues, and got a 
rather large audience leading up to the election as the bail-outs took 
place.  Definetly not a mass victory, but nothig of the sort was 
possible in the last cycle.

But again, anything more nuanced than WIN vs. FAIL just doesn't seem to 
register in your world-view.  Is it not possible to take people's work 
seriously if it does not satisfy some fetishistic idea of "the one true 
party" or some kernel of radicalism that will lead the mass insurrection?

> In 2000, the Greens ran Nader and
> wracked up several million votes.  Then it twice chose not to nominate
> Nader, in favor of candidates who got vote totals more familiar to
> those running third party campaigns.  And, in both 2004 and 2008, the
> majority of individual Green voters participating in the nominations
> process actually voted for Nader, but lost because of how the process
> was structured.

This is absolutely untrue.

First, if your basis for this assertion is the CA primary, it should be 
noted that no other state of comparable size ran a GP primary.  In 2004, 
Nader's name was NOT ON THE CA ballot, it was Camejo.  Just like in 
2008, Nader's name was NOT ON THE IL ballot, there was a stand-in candidate.

Nader DID NOT SEEK THE NOMINATION of the GPUS in 2004 or 2008.  In 2004 
he asked the GPUS to nominate NOONE, and then endorse him.  In 2008, he 
did not seek the nomination either, and instead wanted an endorsement.

If Nader had actually sought the *nomination*, or even expressed his 
willingness to accept it, he would almost certainly have won!

And look at the result in 2004 and 2008 for Nader, as well as 
McKinney/Cobb.  Dismal.  That is a result of the anybody-but-bush/mccain 
stampede that the Dems succesfully scared up.  The results would not 
have been different that the GP endorsed, let alone *nominate* (and 
therefor place upon their ballot line) Nader.

Mark would blame all of this on the GPUS nomination process, or some 
conspiracy of little-men lawyers, or Demo-Greens, or somesuch.  It makes 
for a nice story to tell your cat and dog comrades over beers, but has 
jack-shit to do with the reality of Nader's relationship to the GP, or 
what actually happened to third-party candidates in those two election 
cycles.

> In the end, it doesn't matter what I or Craig or anyone says here.
> Does anyone familiar with the GPUS seriously think it's going to lead
> a mass insurgency in 2012?  On what basis?  Personally, I think it's
> far more likely to see the Second Coming of Norman Thomas.

So now "not being dead" means leading a mass insurgency in the United 
States in 2012?

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu