Louis wrote: > That's also true of the PRI in Mexico or the Peronistas in Argentina, or > the Kemalists in Turkey. For various historical reasons, the trade > unions have had a relationship to bourgeois parties. But that's no > reason to take some kind of pseudo-Hegelian stance that effectively > legitimizes it.
Louis' is a reply to a remark I made in my blog post, which Chuck quoted. In my blog post, I also wrote that socialists should constantly expose, denounce, etc. the Democratic Party for what it is, Obama's government policies, etc. Among socialists, Marxists, communists, radicals, etc., this is to be taken that for granted. They must do this by default. But that is propaganda, which orients the strategy, but does not necessarily provide a basis to decide whether or not to support the Democrats in a given election, which is a tactical issue. Just because you're firmly against crime as a matter of principle doesn't mean that you should necessarily refuse to cooperate with an assailant by handing him your wallet in exchange for your life if he kindle asks for it by sticking a gun against your temple. That the Democratic Party and U.S. capitalism should be taken apart is not the issue. The real issue is how. Try abolishing crime by refusing to cooperate with an armed mugger and such. (By the way, the analogy is Lenin's.) _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
