[Marxism] "demo-green" paranoia and slander: in response to Craig Brozefsky

[mlause at cinci.rr.com]

The stretch goes all the other way.  

For those to whom the facts matter (and there are clearly many for whom "the facts" are already established by Holy Writ), the 2004 nominating process was not representative of the GP ranks and local leadership.  Indeed, I've written on this problem of representation in third parties repeatedly and those interested can consult the archives.

Also, Cobb did not take a "safe-state" strategy into the nominating process and win endorsement for it by the convention. He adopted this after the fact, to the great disgust of most of the Green ranks, which was reflected in the inability of the party to mobilize or enthuse very many people over the campaign.  Despite Cobb's misleadership, support for his nomination wasn't necessarily support for "safe state strategy."

And, indeed, many proponents of the "safe state strategy" believed (and still believe) that this was a pragmatic question of allocating resources rather than a backhanded support for Kerry, though it clearly was in the case of some of the most prominent advocates of the approach.

Again, people seem to want to act upon something more akin to magic theory than Marxism, an idea that somehow if you start something "right" with the "right line" that the cosmos will resonate in response.  

As I've argued, this is a question of groups and currents filling an environmental niche in the environment of modern American politics.  If you had an explicitly American socialist electoral formation--say a Socialist Workers' Party--that got several million votes in 2000, the circumstances would create the same currents and tidepools.  Of course, before this would have even begun to happen, an American socialist group would have begun their pseudo-scientific dogmatizing and expelled or split from anyone not adhering to "the right line."

It's so much more gratifying to sit on the edges of the radicalization and bitch about how reality just doesn't conform to what we want.

Solidairty!
Mark L.





---- Tom Smith <green4tom at earthlink.net> wrote: 
> 1) It's a bit of a stretch to accuse fellow Marxists of being "sectarian" for attacking petit bourgeois populists with a quote on record of supporting or at least rose-color-glass-eyeing "progressive" Democrats. But not surprising: if you consider that much of the so-called "Marxist Left" these days has sold out their critical gray matter in the opportunist rush to remain popular with the college crowd, and constantly makes stupid accusations like this against those a bit more reluctant to do so. I've been the target of this kind of silliness from Marxist friends of mine who are still misguidedly in the Greens. It's not "sectarian" to be critical of the Green Party because the Green Party is neither socialist nor Marxist. That's like accusing Marx and Engels or Lenin or Luxemburg or Trotsky of being "sectarian" because they were critical of the German Catholic People's Party.
> 
> 2) The quote is pretty damning--it seems to carry its own context with it--but it's certainly not uncommon. Nader constantly makes statements like this. David Cobb adopted a "safe states" strategy in '04, which was basically a pro-Kerry strategy.
> 
> Brozefsky wrote as follows:
> 
> This is slanderous horseshit driven by sectarian paranoia.
> 
> Phil has put countless hours, and an immense amount of energy into
> building the Green Party as a real and effective alternative to the
> Democratic Party.  I have seen this work first-hand, as he is a member
> of my Illinois GP local, played a key role in helping us build the
> Cook County Green Party, along with many others help win and then
> defend our ballot access in Illinois, and making the ILGP something of
> *real* value to the communities in Chicago who want to build something
> outside of the Democratic Party machine that dominate our city's
> politics.  His actions speak volumes which contradict the conclusion
> you ask us to draw from that single de-contextualized quote.  He not
> only criticizes "progressive" democrats, but is actively helping GP
> candidates, such as Omar Lopez [1] who is challenging Louis Gutierez
> in the Illinois 4th congressional district.
> 
> The last thing Phil H. is, is a "Democratic Party Accomodationist" and
> I find your characterization of him as one, repulsive, sectarian and
> just flat-out ignorant.  So, if you are shopping around Phil as one of
> the key "demo-greens" in the national GP leadership, it calls into
> question the entire concept of "demo-greens" as a serious threat to
> the GP.
> **********************************************************************************
> Tom Smith
> green4tom at earthlink.net
> ________________________________________________
> 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