Re: [Marxism] British SWP proposes socialist unity effort to oppose bourgeois parties

["Politicus E." <epoliticus@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eli Stephens wrote:  "Actually in all likelihood it was precisely the
opposite. Prosecutions under the FACE act dropped *dramatically* under
the Bush administration, so the more likely effect of the
assassination is to cause "left-liberal types" to cling even more
tightly to the Democrats, who, for all their faults, do at least tend
to use the state to enforce such laws (or OHSA or EEOC or other such
government regulatory laws designed to protect people) far more than
the Republicans."

My claim is based on anecdotal evidence.  Please allow me to explain
with reference to the experience of a cousin of mine, who I shall
refer to as D.  D is nearing completion of a Ph.D. in English from a
well-known university.  I would describe D's political disposition as
residing on the left of the liberal spectrum, in the U.S. sense.  D
succumbed to Obama-mania during the primary season and remains an avid
supporter;  D reads publications such as the London Review of Books
and the New York Times (as do I) but nothing along the lines of
Monthly Review;  D does not engage in any political work to my
knowledge;  D is not a socialist.  On the other hand, D is
unambiguously opposed to both the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan
and has an outstanding appreciation of the history and realities of
colonialism.

My point is that D responded, to a degree, exactly in the manner that
I described in my previous e-mail.  I do not doubt that a proportion
of the U.S. population that I would label as "left-liberal" would
respond in the manner that you hypothesize, Eli.  That is, the killing
of Tiller would induce them to cling to the Democrats even more.  My
claim is simply that the assassination of Tiller posed an opportunity
for political education, which if implemented in a definite fashion,
would lead to radicalization of a much greater proportion.

I tend to doubt a portion of your assertion, however.  After reviewing
the I.L.O. data on workplace fatalities in the U.S., the evidence is
not at all clear that workers are better off under the Dems according
to this measure, even though I did not correct for variations in the
rate of unemployment.  In other words, I suspect the incidence of
fatal workplace accidents has only a very small correlation with who
sits in the White House.  I am willing to change my mind if evidence
is given to the contrary.

epoliticus

-- 
"In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from
time immemorial ... the present year of course always excepted."
-- A German refugee, circa 1867 --

http://epoliticus.wordpress.com/

________________________________________________
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