******************** 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. *****************************************************************
None of the below backs up your implication that Marx was against considering the spoiler problem as a real problem. And the Bismarck example cuts against your line of argument, since Lasalle's conciliation was indeed opposed by Marxists in the Second International--by their practice of voting for Bismark's liberal opponents if they stood for universal suffrage. -Jason On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/1/18 2:47 PM, Jason wrote: > >> Marx's statement is not a general position on the "spoiler" problem. It >> even specifies that that was a case which could result in the "presence of >> a few reactionaries", i.e. he could've said, "Don't let the 'spoiler' >> problem but the sole or ultimate determinate." Fine and good. >> >> Even more, this was during a revolution and he says: "If the forces of >> democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the >> very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have >> been destroyed", i.e. not our situation at all. >> > > Except that Marx was talking not about events happening *during* a > revolution but afterwards when a "democratic party" has taken power. He was > actually anticipating the rise of Bismarck that bamboozled many on the > left, including Lassalle. Bismarck was the Obama of his day, with all sorts > of reforms to keep the workers placated except that Bismarck's health plan > was a lot better than Obama's. > > >> Further, in terms of "spoiling," Nimtz and others record how the 'Marx >> party' in the US intervened in 1864 to convince Fremont to withdraw his >> candidacy to avoid spoiling the election leading to Lincoln's defeat. >> Perhaps Marx knew nothing of this and would've opposed this--but I'm >> doubtful on both counts and would disagree with him if he had. >> > > I find references to Marx and Lincoln fairly pointless. If Marx supported > a Republican because he waged a revolutionary war against chattel slavery, > I will be the first Marxist to support a Democratic president's war against > wage slavery. > > _________________________________________________________ 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
