[Marxism] Driving Practice

[Joaquin Bustelo]

In response to my cryptic comment:

> That said, I do not at all rule out --at least not "in principle"-- 
> application of a Leninist tactic of "critical support" to this kind of 
> bourgeois politician, although I don't see much of a case for it right
now.

Louis writes: 

"Needless to say, parties like the Republicans and the Democrats have had
enough time in history for ordinary workers to figure them out. This is not
to say that many will not vote for candidates that belong to this long, sad,
reactionary tradition that throttles all radical initiatives in the country
but let's not confuse our situation here with what the socialist movement of
the 1920s was dealing with."

I think "critical support" is not just applicable in the case of reformist
parties (bourgeois parties that have arisen from the working class movement)
but also in the case of formations that have arisen from or are in some
sense part of or an expression of national movements, and in the case of
some candidates that may have organic ties to the labor movement, as well as
emerging formations that represent motion towards fuller political
independence (e.g., the Greens in the United States). 

There is a comment somewhere in a letter by Marx referring to Britain in the
1870's where he is talking about the leaders of unions who ran for
parliament under the auspices of the main bourgeois party, and Marx says it
was a shame they didn't get into parliament, for that would have been the
surest way to get rid of the whole lot of them. I think Marx there was
expressing a "critical support"-type approach to electoral tactics.
Similarly, when the Cuban Revolution triumphed Fidel and his friends allowed
the new government to be packed with all the heroes of petty-bourgeois
democracy. And as it turned out, that was the surest and most direct way of
having the masses "outgrow" them, of giving them enough rope to hand
themselves. It should be noted there was nothing AUTOMATIC about the success
of this tactic in Cuba, what was needed for its success was the mass
mobilizations and pressure by the revolutionary forces around the July 26
Movement for revolutionary measures --and most of all the agrarian reform--
to be carried out.

There is nothing about the Democratic Party as such that makes a "critical
support" tactic in the least bit useful against it. But I wasn't talking
about Democrats IN GENERAL, but about "this kind of bourgeois politician"
meaning Obama. Meaning one who appears to be possibly setting into motion or
serving as the focal point for the emergence of a movement. Should that take
place, and depending on the FORMS it takes, then I would think a discussion
of critical support would be appropriate. 

In other words, it is not a question of how "progressive" the politician nor
of the political party as such, but of the social motion and class or other
movement base. Because the "target" of the tactic, the real justification
for it, IS NOT THE POLITICIAN BEING "supported" but the mass base/motion the
politico is associated with.

Joaquín