[Marxism] On the Democratic Party question

[Benjamin Morgan]

dave.walters at comcast.net wrote:

 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.

Comrade Ben:

First on Marx support of Republicans: During the mid 1800's to early 1930's the Republican party was essentially democratic. The democrats traditionally were pro-business, anti-slavery and anti civil rights read this excerpt from wikipedia on the origins of the Republican party:

The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 began a new era of  Republican dominance based in the industrial Northeast and agricultural Midwest.  Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln." Lincoln  proved brilliantly successful in uniting all the factions of his party to fight  for the Union. However, he often disagreed with the Radical  Republicans who demanded harsher measures toward the South. In Congress, the  party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a  national banking system, high tariffs, the first temporary income tax, many  excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national  debt, homestead laws, and land grants to aid higher education, railroads and  agriculture.
 The Republicans denounced the northern anti-war Democrats as disloyal Copperheads and won enough War Democrats to maintain  their majority in 1862, and reelect Lincoln by a landslide in 1864. During Reconstruction, 1865-1877,  how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves or Freedmen were the major issues. President Andrew Johnson, a  Democrat that had been nominated as Lincoln's running-mate by the National Union  (Republican) convention, broke with the Radicals in 1866. The showdown came in  the Congressional elections of  1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of  Reconstruction, passing key laws over Johnson's vetoes. The Radicals imposed  Republican rule on the South—a coalition of Freedmen, Scalawags, and Carpetbaggers, who were deeply resented by the  conservative ex-Confederates.[26]
 Elected in 1868, Ulysses S. Grant supported radical  reconstruction programs in the South, the Fourteenth  Amendment, equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen; most of all,  Grant was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. Reconstruction  came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded to Republican Rutherford B.  Hayes who promised, through the unofficial Compromise of 1877, to withdraw federal  troops from control of the last three Southern states. The region then became  the Solid South, giving  overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the  Democrats until 1964.
 As the Northern post-war economy boomed with industry, railroads, mines, and  fast-growing cities, as well as prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took  credit and promoted policies to keep the fast growth going. The Democratic Party  was largely controlled by pro-business Bourbon Democrats until 1896. The GOP  supported big business generally, hard money (i.e., the gold standard), high tariffs, and generous pensions for  Union veterans. By 1890, the Republicans had agreed to the Sherman  Antitrust Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission  in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers. Civil service reform was a  bipartisan program that eliminated most patronage by 1900. Foreign affairs  seldom became partisan issues (except for the annexation of Hawaii, which  Republicans favored and Democrats opposed). Much more salient were cultural  issues. The GOP supported the pietistic Protestants (especially the Methodists,  Congregationalists,
 Presbyterians, and Scandinavian Lutherans) who demanded Prohibition. That angered wet  Republicans, especially German Americans, who broke ranks in 1890-1892,  handing power to the Democrats.


The Democrats never severed their chains from big business! Marx was analyzing their progressive tendencies at the time; not pledging allegiance to them! However, Louis raises an interesting point about critical support, a number of liberal voters believe they can choose the lesser of two evils in a pitiful attempt to marginally mitigate the standard for living under the modern day republicans. This is a sad pitfall to get trapped in. No matter how progressive a canidate of the democratic party may seem during elections remember they will never bite the hand that feeds them. Political theory 101 teaches if you want to win an election you need to sway some of the opposition party into your favor because clear democrat/republican splits don't win elections. A revolutionary democrat if one ever exist will never win a election under the current political climate. As soon as he down talks his masters the moderate republicans will link arms with the neo-cons; while the democrats
 themselves will yank back the perverbial leash on their canidate and break rank. Any comrade who believes that supporting the democrats is a new radical way of challenging the capitalist system should immediately contact Sam Webb from the CPUSA and should discuss the formation of a support group where you and Madea Benjamin hit the streets lobbying! In conclusion, the Greens could potentially become a reasonable option in the future. However, trying to distinguish between the democrats and republicans in post-industrial capitalism, is a waste of unfruitful time, like trying to distinguish between us orthodox Marxist and classical Communist 






“Whenever death may surprise us, let it be welcome if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.”
   
  ~ Ernesto "Che" Guevara
       
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.