Thanks for helping to make concrete how CP'ers approach these questions. There are class differences between Social Democratic Parties on one hand and the Democratic Party in the USA. Lenin advocated a united front between the Communists and the Social Democrats on a class basis. The Democratic Party is not only a bourgeois party; it is a party that has its roots in American slavery and only renounced Jim Crow relatively late in the game. It also has the blood of Hiroshima, Vietnam and countless other 3rd world countries on its hands. I could go on at greater length, but you get the idea.
Louis Proyect
Rooted in Lenin, yes, I see this as part of the basis of the perspective the CP has. You are half right on other points. The social democratic parties Lenin advocated unity with also were rooted in slavery and imperialism. I'm not sure why you'd choose to try to make a distinction on this point between them and our Democrats. The point is that Lenin, over and over again, urged communists to not by default hand a victory to the ruling class by being only willing to unite only with "pure" elements. What did he call this? Petty bourgois childness? I'd hate to think the position you and others are taking, or rather lack of position--because ultimately, in the short run, that is what it is--is rooted in a petty bourgeois disconnection from the class sef-described marxists claim to speaking. But there is still time to agitate and struggle for a more advanced line. But this does seem like an old argument.
Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net
_________________________________________________________________ Find and compare great deals on Broadband access at the MSN High-Speed Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
