[Marxism] Tomorrow's third party debate...dead as a can of spam

[Aaron Aarons]

>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:28:44 -0400
>From: "Mark Lause" <markalause at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] Tomorrow's third party debate...dead as a can of spam
>
>I have no idea of Aaron means by "hard" and "soft" left.  Half a dozen
>Trotskyist grouplets have given McKinney an exclusive endorsement, so
>she was hardcore enough for them.

Which "grouplets"?

I might, BTW, vote for the left-reformist McKinney as a protest vote since the left-centrist La Riva is not on the ballot here in California, though I might decide to vote for La Riva as a write-in. (I'm going to vote a write-in for Berkeley Mayor, anyway.)

>If he's referring to the candidates of the SLPs (Socialist Lilliputian
>Parties), I don't know the answer.  The focus here were candidates on
>the ballot in enough states to matter, and were running to win voters
>rather than for internal organizational purposes within their
>grouplings..

How does "running to win voters" help the struggle against capitalism/imperialism? Shouldn't the purpose of anybody claiming to be a "Marxist", "Trotskyist", "revolutionary socialist" or whatever be to win people -- including especially those not eligible to vote! -- to revolutionary anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist politics. And isn't part of such politics an understanding that the basic questions will never be decided by any elections under capitalism, but rather by struggle -- a struggle that will inevitably be violent because the capitalists and their hangers-on will never give up their wealth and power peacefully?

As for "Socialist Lilliputian Parties", better a party of one that speaks truth to the powerless than a reformist party of a million. Or perhaps Mark would like to see the U.S. Greens become successful like the German Greens, or any of a number of other Green parties that are co-agents of capitalist rule?

 - Aaron