[Marxism] On the Democratic Party question

[Craig Brozefsky]

"Mark Lause" <MLause at cinci.rr.com> writes:

> The factual point: I've been Green for as long as that's been an option.
> I've made that abundantly clear on the list repeatedly.

I also am an active member of the Green Party.

> Conclusion; In asserting that the only legitimate electoral alternative is
> Democratic, this effectively echoes the Democratic disenfranchisement of
> hundreds of thousands of voters in the last election....

It is also false.  It is the logic of people who look at "objective"
reality and see it as something disjoint from their own actions and
efforts.

The way I see it, if as revolutionary leftist we are not able to
navigate the legal and socio-political landscape of electoral politics
within the US without throwing up our hands in disgust, or resigning
ourselves to let the "objective" siuation change automagically, then
we have no claim on being revolutionary leadership of any sort.

As a Green, my perspective on the sectors of the working-class and
minorities that are attached to the Democratic Party, is similiar to
Marvin's analysis.  Until we as Greens can offer them a political
party and support for their leaders sufficient to defend themselves,
then who am I to look them in the eye and tell them they should
abandon their relationship to DP structures?  I see my task as a
revolutionary leftist to build such a party, first within my locality
and then to coordinate this on state and national levels so that our
political movements can share resources and collaborate at those
levels.  This work pays off in two ways -- it threatens the DP which
then will have pressure to make concessions to these movements to keep
them from abandoning ship, and it builds a cadre which is required for
electoral work independent of the DP.

As a revolutionary communist, my perspective on the Greens is actually
similiar to H. Brown's analysis that they are not explicitely
anti-capitalist.  I think his objective/subjective dichotomy is
misguided, as is the reaction against "empiricism".  

Unfortunately, the rest of his comments are based on ignorance of the
GP, such as suggesting that they are funded by the petit-bourgeois.
If only.  They have very little funding at any level.  If HB and
others would like to provide "critical support" to the GP, I suggest
they write their state GP a check and include their criticism in the
"Note" field of the check.

Also, the structural differences between the GP and the Democrats are
significant in turns of their resistance to patronage and their
capability of expressing grassroots democracy.  This is very
important, IMO, in making the GP capable of expressing a working class
perspective, and protecting those expressions in the future.

A working-class political party is not going to be anti-capitalist at
this point.  The working class is tied to capitalism until it is able
to develop a consciousness of their own relationship to it and
envision the process by which it is overthrown.  Developing that
perspective will require a party that expresses a leading edge of the
existing working-class consciousness, no just thru magazines and
rhetoric, but also thru action and political structures which preserve
momentum and forge connections at the national level and below.  This
cannot be done within the DP, nor can it be done within the existing
socialist parties at this stage of US political development.

-- 
Sincerely, Craig Brozefsky              <craig at red-bean.com>
what a klon  - neko           http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
Less matter, more form!                       - Bruno Schulz
ignazz, I am truly korrupted by yore sinful tzourceware. -jb