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

[S. Artesian]

Fred provides a very moving picture of the events of some 44 years ago.  At 
the risk of being accused of misrepresenting his analysis and Marvin's 
original question, I will point out that Fred's analysis does not speak at 
all to the question raised.

Marvin's issue was raised in response to Fred's question:  What if millions 
of Americans start moving to the left [although that is not defined] without 
leaving the Democratic party because they believe that, the DP, is all there 
is?

Marvin then suggests that joining, entering the DP is a viable and practical 
path to "reaching the masses" and developing the direction and content of 
that movement.

As was stated in response, we have pretty thorough history of just such 
movements, and just such "entryism" and the results.  The movements all 
began and grew outside the DP; the internal direction of the movements was 
pushed to the left by those outside the DP; once the DP gained significant 
support of the "masses" for their electoral solutions, the movements 
retreated, and in some cases, actually collapses.

Mark has pointed out that the DP does not function as a "party" in any 
manner other than as an electoral, office-seeking party.  It does not 
initiate, welcome, maintain, sustain, political discussions on a 
neighborhood, precinct, factory, community level regarding the major issues. 
The DP campaigns for candidates, that's it.  Or mostly it.

Returning to Fred's narrative-- his moving picture of the civil rights 
struggle-- the DP did not organize Selma; the DP did not organize Freedom 
Summer;  the DP did not, as a party, initiate voter-registration of 
African-Americans in the South.

And, speaking to another issue, the most advanced elements of the struggle 
for African-American freedom were NOT inside the Democratic Party.  Those 
articulating the left, radical perspective, who were voicing the feelings 
and needs of millions, those with whom Marxists need to establish linkage, 
support, discussion, were not in the party, Malcolm X being an obvious 
example. Those who led and participated in the Watts rebellion, in the 
Newark, Chicago, and most importantly, the Detroit uprisings, those who 
formed and joined DRUM and the LRBW are perhaps less obvious but just as 
important, if not more important.

Fred's moving picture of the struggle is in fact its own still picture, its 
own snapshot.  Advance the frames to 1968, and the strike of the Memphis 
sanitation workers.  Where was the DP  then?  Did it extend an umbrella of 
protection and support to those striking workers?  Did the DP, as a party, 
explain, initiate any discussion among its members of the history of 
discrimination in Memphis?  Of Boss Crump?  Of the previous struggles for 
unionization?  Of the fact that the organizing efforts of the industrial 
unions were the first to crack, at least partly, the super-exploitation of 
black workers?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] An analysis of the DP convention that works better