[Marxism] Stan Goff, Bill Fletcher and the 2-party system

[Austin, Andrew]

What's your point?  My point is only this: that the astonishment among
some Marxists expressed at other Marxists who advocate voting Democrat
at this point in history on the assumed grounds that a good Marxist
would never support bourgeois candidates is completely misplaced.  Only
an ideologue would a priori reject voting for bourgeois candidates.  

Where is the Marxist method in any of this, anyway?  Where is the
argument explaining why voting Democrat would be worse for workers than
voting for an alternative party?  Where is the argument explaining why
voting Democrat at this point would harm the long-term interests of the
working class?  We live in concrete historical moments, Louis.  The best
choice at this concrete moment is voting in a way that slows down the
institionalization of fascistic politics.  That means voting for
Democrats.  

Marx was fired up about Lincoln's victory.  I'm not fired up about the
Democrat's potential for victory.  But I know what I have to do.


-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu
[mailto:marxism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Louis Proyect
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:37 PM
To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
Subject: RE: [Marxism] Stan Goff, Bill Fletcher and the 2-party system

Andrew wrote:
>Wow, that's a terrible response, Louis.  And what an over-the-top
>strawman: "support Kerry in order to wipe out feudalism or slavery."

Whatever.

I would only ask you to supply the name of another bourgeois politician
that communists or socialists backed prior to 1935. From 1860 to the
Popular Front is a pretty long time, no?

--

www.marxmail.org


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options
at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism