Re: historical errors

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

> "Devine, James" wrote:
>
> >  But both those who can (like unions) and
> > those who cannot (like many non-profits that get tax exemptions of
> > one sort or another) WORK for the Democratic Party by using their
> > money and manpower to do "issue" campaigns that are subtly (or
> > sometimes even pretty blatantly) designed to motivate people to
> > support the Democratic Party.
>
> Maybe, but that's only an interpretation. A lot of them teach working
> people to fight for themselves (as a group). That may help the DP in
> terms of recruits, but I doubt that such recruits are wanted by the
> DLC.

The NAACP (in my experience locally and from what I know about it
elsewhere) is among other things virtually an adjunct of the DP. I don't
know what other examples Yoshie may have in mind. In the '60s many local
NAACP chapters did become fighting units of some sort, but that was a
temporary phenomenon, not typical. The nominal (but paid) membership of
a chapter might be quite large, with only a very small group attending
meetings.

>
> I wrote:
> > >The existence of such movements on the left means that the
> > >establishment parties are pushed to be better than they would be
> > >otherwise, just as the existence of grass-roots organizations on
> > >the right pushes them toward evil.

I'm skeptical of this.

> Yoshie:
> > The US ruling class have a political triangle through which they can
> > get what they want:
> >
> > 1. The Republicans propose to attack the working class by a BIG
> > offensive which they MAY or MAY NOT be able to carry out.
> >
> > 2. The Democrats come out and propose an only slightly smaller
> > offensive against the working class.
> >
> > 3. Unions and liberal non-profits line up to support a slightly
> > smaller offensive against the working class, rather than fighting
> > against the ruling-class parties' offensive.
> >
> > Then, the ruling class get what they want -- an attack on the
> > working class (a smaller than what the Republicans propose but more
> > successfully carried out than by the Republicans) without triggering
> > social and political conflicts (because unions and liberal
> > non-profits under the Democratic Party hegemony support it).

> I agree, but how does voting for Ralph help break this triangle? How
> does it tilt the balance of class forces toward good rather than evil?

I tend to agree with Jim here. The Nader/Green thing can possibly be
useful in so far as working in it creates relationships at the local
level among activists who might otherwise have remained ignorant of each
other's existence. The Jackson campaign did this for Jan and me, but
unfortunately the contacts we made then have since moved away or died.
Something unexpected may turn up as a focus of activity, but for the
present anti-war (or anti-occupation) activity seems the best way to
build 'cadre' for future struggles.

I think I also agree with a point Jim made in an earlier post, that
formal parties (of whatever type) arise from mass movements, not the
other way around. But still, in any local area where there is extensive
Nader/Green activity that is a probably a good thing to participate in
during this quadrennial hiatus from politics. My experience in the '60s
was that during a presidential election year little or nothing could be
done from April through the following January or February.

Carrol

P.S. One constantly hears leftists suggest that the activity of "the
right" inside the Republican Party should be a model for "The Left" in
respect to the DP. (I.e., rightist's built a base during the Goldwater
campaign, then achieved power with Reagan, etc.) I think that in general
is nonsense, but there may be one lesson there, though it is a lesson
that ought to be obvious anyhow: Left activity _at this time_ cannot be
geared to "winning" anything NOW. Our focus always has to be two or
three years in the future. This has always been the case. Focus on _NOW_
generates either despair or self-deception -- the latter, I think,
characterizes the ABB movement. The Weatherman wrecking crews also arose
from this demand that we make a difference _now_; they confused the
slogan, End the War Now, with a expectation that if we didn't end the
war now, our actions were pointless. So they engaged in pointless
action! Campaigning for Kerry is just the other side of the coin of
smashing windows.

> Jim D.