====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Joaquin mixes apples and oranges in this sweeping overview of electoral tactics and comes up with a..... dog's breakfast. We went through this argument about Lenin's support of "bourgeois parties" in early 20th century Russia some time ago, and I think Louis and others made it clear that Lenin was not referring to the Kadet party, but to the petty-bourgeois democratic formations. That's a class distinction. Certainly the Democratic Party is not a petty bourgeois formation severing petty bourgeois interests as separate and apart from preserving big capitalist property. I love how Joaquin and others are so quick to point out how obsolete, archaic the formulations of current Marxist parties, and then prove that by referring to what Marx wrote in 1870, or Lenin in 1903, or Lenin in 1920. Voting for a democrat, small d, is a tactical question, even in cases when the small d democrat is associated with the big D Democrat. So in 1964, it certainly is tactical, and proper tactics to vote for the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party list of delegates, and to support the seating of those delegates in place of the Mississippi Democratic Party delegates. But Obama is no small d democrat; he, and his organization did not spring from some upsurge, rebellion against specific, direct, material conditions of exploitation. He and his organization have no interest in replacing Big D with small d. Joaquin has apparently forgotten the material conditions that led to the creation of the MFDP-- the disruption of tenant-farming/share-cropping agricultural relations in the South; the expansion of industry in general from 1940 on, the significant increase in the numbers of African-American industrial workers in both North and South. Evaluation of those circumstance, those class changes, are what determines the validity of an election tactic. The 2008 election FOR THE BOURGEOISIE was about who could best divert, prevent, canalize, subdue emerging class struggle; who could best get silence assent for austerity and impoverishment from the very people being impoverished. It's Joaquin's attachment to bougeois image, and myth-making, to think that it was anything else. The question isn't whether or not Joaquin voted for Obama-- I mean who cares? The issue is what Joaquin and others tell others-- vote for Obama because...why? Because Marx expressed disappointment that some bureaucrats weren't elected because that would expose them, discredit them quicker than anything? That's New Tet's position. And again, history, politics don't work that way-- look for example at the history of the CP's and their participation in popular fronts. Whatever exposure, discreditation was accomplished was outweighed by the simple fact of the overwhelming defeat, and disorganization of the working class that followed the popular fronts. Tomy recollection, Joaquin never proposed voting for Obama and co. because "that would have been the surest way of getting rid of the whole lot." Is that what Joaquin is now advocating? That it is the surest way to prove the bankruptcy of the Democratic Party? Geez, people have been voting and electing local Obamas for decades-- hasn't gotten rid of any of them, has it? Joaquin states that his position was one that offered no support to the Democratic Party but "had no problem with people who voted for Obama." Well, that is hardly the issue, is it? Voting for Obama doesn't change anything about the people voting for him. Our problems with some people, the bourgeoisie, who voted for Obama, exist independently of their vote. Our "no problem" with poor people, workers, who voted for Obama is a "no problem" whether they voted for him or not, or voted at all. Masses of black people, Latino people supported Obama-- no doubt. Masses of black voters supported Lyndon Johnson also in 1964, and Hubert Humphrey too in 1968-- what's different about Obama?only this: Obama is African-American. That's what it comes down to-- that and nothing else for those Marxists who think that somehow supporting the election and program for election [you can't do one without the other, no matter how important People Magazine is to a candidate's prospects] of Obama would allow them to "to say something fruitfully later." I think that such justification for supporting the election and program of Obama falls squarely into one of those other categories Lenin was so fond of skewering -- opportunism. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <[email protected]> ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
