[Marxism] In Defense of Harrington and American

[Bhaskar Sunkara]

I brought up that point in my original post

"U.S. parties are not like modern European parties. In Europe, the parties
of the Left tend to name leaders on the basis of a political viewpoint and,
in any case, only dues-paying members of the party have the right to elect
delegates, who in turn select that leader. But in the United States anyone
who declares himself or herself a member of a party can, without the payment
of dues or the affirmation of a single political principle, help determine
the leadership, program, and policies of the party."

What do you think of the example of the Christian Right's movement into the
Republican Party?  Would their nefarious cause been better suited in the
Constitution Party?  Is this example at all relevant for progressive and
socialist forces?  These aren't rhetorical statements, but actual questions.

---
As far as agreements, I think we would agree that the 99 percent of efforts
need to be in build social movements and heightening the level of class
consciousness and polarization in the United States.  If these efforts led
to "independent political action" in the electoral sphere, I would be proven
wrong, and of course I would join such efforts.  I just wouldnt throw any of
my time into the Green Party, or even organizations I symphatize with like
fringe unions like the IWW.

As far as anti-imperialism and "the Harrington's of the world" not being
allowed to quote Marx--- I myself follow Lenin's traditional of
anti-imperialism and Leninism's tradition of third world struggles.  Marx
himself was said to not mind and to SUPPORT the USA's imperialist aggression
in Mexico in the 1840s, because it would only led to the building up of
productive forces and hasten the end of the bourgeois era.  Marx himself and
Engles when he supported imperialist efforts in North Africa, showed that
they were prone to lapses as well.