[Marxism] On the Democratic Party question

[dave.walters at comcast.net]

On this question of Marx/Lenin/ et al supporting capitalist parties. To begin with, this because a sort 
of 'point-counterpoint' scoring discussion if it descends this low without any context, or noting at 
least there was any context.

I would say that Joaquin is correct, formally, about Marx. In his article on the formation and 
early victories of the Repubican party, such as here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm he clearly extrolls the nature of the rise 
of the Republicans againt the arch-reactionary Confederates. This is a common theme for him on 
US politics. Of course, the US was one of the only countries in the world where the working class 
and farming class COULD vote. 

Also, the US was a *developing* country, not as advanced as, say, the U.K. or Belgium during 
this period. I might add that communists were actually IN the Republican Party. The Communist 
League even recruited out of it a leading member, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner, and close personal friend of Friedrick Sorge, into the CL. Fascintating, yes? Of course 
Marxsits also integrated themselves into the "capitalist army" of the US, becoming leading generals 
in some cases, such as August Willich, vertern of the revolution of 1848 in Prussia, and the better 
known Joseph Weydemeyer, also a general.

There is one... *one* instance of Rosa Luxemberg calling for a vote for a bourgeois party in Germany, 
a liberal party, in 1912. It came up with some discussions I had a few years ago arguing with some 
British Trotskyist (of all people) over why their veiw of supporting "ABB" was crazy. Sure enough 
some one came up with some obscure quote.

I doubt thought they any of these great Marxists (and Marx) made tactical voting for bourgeois 
parties because "the masses there voting for them" a criteria. I think it's also irrelevant. I would 
also dispute the concept of "them masses". It's a rediculous term to use in the context of 21st 
Century Amercian voting trends. Like Joaquin chastizing list members for talking about a 
"workers movement" when there is no motion, the same is true of "The Masses", which implies a focus 
of movement by a self-consious, albeit spontenous grouping of huge number of people. Not. In fact, 
I would argue that voting for "progressive democrats" is MORE a relfection of their "atomization" 
than any coherenet political accumen on their part.

It shows the *lack of leadership* and a default, desperate and at the same time aloof feeling 
of hopelessness. Oh, and this important, even "The Masses" ain't so "mass". Most people do *not* 
vote, they abstain.

So what ARE we talking about here? While what Joaquin and others may say is true about why 
people vote for so and so, the idea that we can't explain why this is simply wrong. That while 
an independent vote for a McKinney that breaks demonstrably with the Democrats is *much less* 
a waste of time, it is far more a waste of time allowing the same Democrats to point to the THEM as 
an answer. If we are ever to achevie any indendent movement toward a vehicle that can point the 
away bourgois politicians, it will not include advocating VOTING for them as a tactic. That would be 
just plain dumb.

David