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

[Mark Lause]

I understand Fred's point but would put it differently.  In a sense,
the spots can change.  They are skin deep.  The structure, the essence
remains unchanged.

Marvin misunderstands my point about not having a voice.  Anybody can
say anything pretty much anywhere, if they're willing to put up with
the flack that comes with it.  The question is whether or not it means
anything.  My father was an old CIO New Deal Democrat.  (I'm not using
this as a euphemism for CP, btw.)  He was what they used to call a
"yellow dog Democrat" in the South, that is someone who'd vote
Democratic if a yellow dog was heading the ticket.  Several times, he
actually attended city conventions as a delegate from the ward, but
this was always when a larger organization--the union or something
like that--was trying to get something passed.  At times, they'd get
things voted and the machine would just ignore it.  Desegregation of
public facilities was one of those issues that would periodically come
up, get endorsed, and simply not recorded in the minutes or published
in the press.

The essence of a caucus party is that it is innately top-down.  It is
rooted in the 18th century parliamentary and congressional bodies.
The branch parties developed in a later, less overtly artistocratic
age.  This is all PoliSci 101, though.

Marvin is certainly correct that people who vote Democratic can go to
events and talk to each other.  I've  gone to PDA stuff around here
and talked to people.  There's absolutely no reason you have to vote
Democratic to do it.

ML

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 9:42 AM, S. Artesian <sartesian at earthlink.net> wrote:
> No doubt, working for the Obama campaign will provide you with access to
> hundreds of thousands of others working for the Obama campaign; allow you to
> make thousands of phone calls asking for support of Obama; grant you hours
> of street time recruiting signatures on petititons for Obama.
>
> You can be gay, feminist, trade unionist, environmentalist.  No doubt. And
> you can talk about all those other issues.  You sure can.  Because you will
> keeping all that discussion squarely in the framework of the platform of the
> Democratic party.  As long as you keep the discussion to trade union rights,
> global warming, justice-- you can.  But step away from the platform.   Give
> your thousands of contacts your deep down Marxist analysis, see how much
> phone time, street time, committee time you get then.  On your way out the
> door.
>
> Millions of people did all that type of work for McGovern in 1972; and that
> with the added benefit of McGovern's explicitly anti-war positon.  However,
> that electioneering  coincided with a decline in the anti-war movement.
> That electioneering was part of the decline in the anti-war movement.
>
> How can you talk about Iraq given Obama's consistent equivocation?  How do
> you campaign for Obama and respond to somebody's question about Afghanistan?
> How do you talk to Iraq Veterans Agains the War?
>
> How do you work inside the Democratic party and not support Democratic
> candidates for office like-- for example-- Pelosi?  Feinstein?  Richard M.
> Daley? Schumer?  Clinton?  any number of Kennedys.
>
> By whispering?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marvin Gandall" <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
> To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 8:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] An analysis of the DP convention that works better
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/markalause%40gmail.com
>