******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Again, Gerald Horne, a tenured professor that writes about black history and labor history has said something quite different from what you have. I advise you to take it up with him and do some actual scholarship. Best regards, Andrew Stewart > On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:22 PM, Louis Proyect <l...@panix.com> wrote: > >> On 2/20/16 4:17 PM, hasc.warrior.s...@gmail.com wrote: >> If that is the case, my discussion and research on the topic with >> Gerald Horne and several others who are involved in the scholarship >> indicated that theoretical nuances is far different than how the >> public reaction in America developed. > > This is the Marxism list. If you don't want to be criticized, don't post > links to articles that make the case for Stalin. I know that this might sound > like ancient history but I was educated in Marxism by Trotsky's bodyguard Joe > Hansen. > > Stalin's movement was based on bureaucratic fiat. The Black Belt theory > developed during the Third Period, an ultraleft disaster of biblical > proportions. In the USA it was hardly a factor in the CP's impact on American > society but in Germany it helped to lead to the rise of Nazism. > > We are still paying for the CP's mistakes. There was a basis for a working > class party in the 1930s but the CP sabotaged it because it saw the DP as a > useful ally in the popular front (until Hitler made a pact with Stalin.) What > did it mean for the CP to function effectively as the left wing of the DP > when this was essentially the party that defended slavery and Jim Crow and > whose Dixiecrat wing was never challenged by FDR? A *racist* party that the > Daily Worker extolled? > > From an interview with Ira Katzelson on his book "Fear Itself", a debunking > of New Deal myths: > > Q: Your book is very moving on what you call the “southern cage” and FDR and > the Democratic Party’s Faustian bargain with southern Democrats -- to > preserve white supremacy and segregation laws in order to pass New Deal > legislation. I think the level of racism and oppression in the south may stun > some younger readers. > > A: We might begin by recalling that in the 1930s and 1940s -- before the 1954 > Brown v. Board of Education decision -- we had seventeen states in the Union, > not just the eleven that seceded during the Civil War, but seventeen states > that mandated racial segregation. Not one representative from those states, > ranging from the most racist like Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, to the most > liberal and not racist like Claude Pepper of Florida, ever opposed racial > segregation in this period. So you had seventeen states, thirty-four United > States senators and a disproportionately large House of Representatives > delegation because seats are apportioned on the basis of population not > voters, and this was a period when the South had a very low turnout, low > franchise electorate. > > There were rules like the poll tax and literacy tests to keeps black from > voting, and those rules also kept many whites out of the electorate. So you > had a small electorate, a one-party system and therefore great seniority for > Southern members of Congress with control over key committees and legislative > positions of leadership -- that is, disproportionate power. > > And the Democratic Party in this period -- the agent of the New Deal in > Congress -- was composed of a strange-bedfellows alliance of a Northern, > principally immigrant, Catholic and Jewish, big-city, labor-oriented > political base, together with a Southern, largely non-immigrant, non-urban, > mostly Protestant, rural base. They could not have been more different in > those respects, yet together they composed the Democratic Party. To secure > party majorities for New Deal legislation, it was necessary to keep the two > wings together, which meant that the south had a veto over all New Deal > legislation. > > After 1938, the Southerners composed a majority of the Democrats in Congress > because Republicans began to make a comeback as they won Democratic seats in > the North. But [the Republicans] did not win Democratic seats in the South. > In 1940, every U.S. senator from the South was a Democrat just at the moment > when the Republicans had begun to make a comeback in the House and in Senate > seats outside the South. The consequence was that, in the 1940s, it wasn’t > just that Southern members of Congress could say no to what they didn’t like. > They actually were the authors of the preferences that shaped every single > legislative outcome in the 1940s. > > Nothing could be passed into law against the wishes of the Southern members > of Congress. And most things that passed into law, especially after 1938 and > 1940, matched almost precisely the preferences of the Southern wing of the > Democratic Party in Congress. > > - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151867 _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
