[Marxism] An analysis of the DP convention that works better

[Fred Feldman]

S. Artesian wrote:
The struggles were carried on outside the Democratic Party. The Party 
reacted to these struggles. When the struggles challenged the actual party 
structure, for example, credentials of the Mississippi delegation, the party

acted as it always has and always will.

The legislative response were the accommodations by the ruling class to 
regain control of terrain, to contain those struggles. Doesn't mean we 
oppose the civil rights legislation; it does mean we don't join the party 
that the ruling class uses to regain that control, to contain those 
struggles.

Fred comments:
The key weakness in Artesian's comment is this statement: "When the
struggles challenged the actual party structure, for example, credentials of
the Mississippi delegation, the party acted as it always has and always
will."

This replaces a moving picture of the Democratic Party's very painful
adaptation to the civil rights movement with a misunderstood still
photograph.

The confrontation at the 1964 convention was a very important moment, but
not the decisive one. I was at the protest for a weekend in, I believe,
August 1964 in Atlantic City. The SNCC and other groups had organized  a
sitdown in front of the convention at the Convention Hall on the Boardwalk.
(I'm a hopeless vulgarian and I always liked the old Atlantic City,
identifying completely with the Burt Lancaster character in Louis Malle's
classic movie, "Atlantic City.")

Robin Maisel and I, in opposition to Socialist Workers Party which we were
entitled to do since we were not members but strong supporters, to go to
Atlantic City and participate in this protest. Basically, anything that
Black people and their supporters were doing to protest racism was okay with
us. We brought Militants and DeBerry-Shaw leaflets (our wonderful propaganda
campaign that year, with DeBerry as the first Black presidential candidates
to have a serious campaign -- propaganda by definition -- behind him.) Thus
participants at least that weekend got the impression that the Socialist
Workers Party was supporting their protest, while the SWP was actually
trying to studiedly avoid it. In retrospect, I have no doubt we were right
and gave the impression of the SWP that it should have wanted to give of
itself.

Well, of course, the confrontation ended with an ambiguous deal -- really a
denial of justice -- and the Black movement went on to support the
Johnson-Humphrey ticket.

But S. Artesian leaves the impression that this was the end of the story. 
In 1965, the Selma, Alabama, voting rights protests exploded, and this
became a national and international center of attention. There were protests
of Blacks and white supporters 

Well, Bill Sales, president of the University of Penna. NAACP, Robin and I
decided to organize a sit-in at Independence Hall. It was initially my
suggestion, but Robin, supported by Bill, was much more aggressive in
carrying it out. (My own advice is that if it comes to a choice about having
Robin or me lead the insurrection, I recommend Robin. He got the willpower.
Forget about the wheelchair.) The sit-in at the Liberty Bell lasted almost
three days and ended by joining a mass protest called by the NAACP of about
10,000 people.

But the real point of this reminiscing is that that upsurge really did
revolutionize the structure of the Democratic Party, not to mention the
structure of bourgeois state power in the South (and to some extent the
north). The voting rights act was a reform, but it was not JUST a reform. It
was a product of a truly and fundamentally democratic revolutionary struggle
by Black working people, led by their prichers, their schoolteachers, and
other only slightly less underestimated people.

In fact, the Democratic Party sacrificed itself to absorb (even more than
contain) the civil rights movement and keep it within the framework of
capitalism.

Does anyone recall a  Congressional Black Caucus before 1965. Not to mention
an Obama campaign, etc.

Did the Democratic Party change its imperialist spots. No. Did the structure
of the Democratic Party change?  You bet it did.
Fred Feldman