******************** 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. *****************************************************************
I have put forward a line of reasoning that I have yet to see anybody take up. To repeat: DSA could start by running its own candidates as working class representatives for local office. Those candidates could link up the local issues with the fact that the local Democratic politicians are representatives of big business, in particular (as is often the case) the real estate developers. In many if not most cases, these local Democrats are from the liberal/"progressive" wing of the Democratic Party. In this way, it can be shown that the entire party represents the owners of capital and the "progressive" wing is simply the bait for the trap. That means that wing entirely. But how can DSA and representatives of DSA clearly and concretely explain this when they are supporting candidates of that wing of the Democrats at the same time? How? Please, I'd like somebody to explain that to me, because in my mind the facts speak for themselves. DSA is proving in action that they cannot and will not do that. Please explain the flaw in this line of reasoning. And please explain where and when any political force has ever done both - concretely organize for a mass working class party while supporting some Democrats. John Reimann On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Jason <jason...@gmail.com> wrote: > "is Jason trying to say that there's no difference between a working class > party, or the British Labour Party, and the Democratic Party?" > > > No, I am not trying to say that. What I am saying is those differences > can’t predetermine like a a cookie-cutter our tactics and strategy. > > > As I said [clumsily]: “[the class-basis of a party] did not tie down > [Lenin’s] thinking from considering a range of tactical and strategic > options--including working within and voting for--in relationship to other > parties, including bourgeois ones.” > > > Everything John R. and others have written recently re: the Democratic > Party does point to why we need to build a different political organization > than the Democratic Party, but what I see is a conflation of that larger > task with the idea that position then determines, without any further > analysis, how one votes in any or all elections. > > > -Jason > -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _________________________________________________________ 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
