On 11/13/12 9:47 AM, Marv Gandall wrote: > I don't know offhand of any historical instance where the flow of > traffic hasn't been from both directions in the construction of a new > party - from within the established but increasingly discredited mass > party favoured by the workers, and from those who remained apart from > it. Do you? Syriza seems to me the latest example of a union of > outside far left groups and popular movements with disaffected > militants from within PASOK, the once hegemonic Greek social > democratic party, who have been frustrated in their efforts to > prevent the party leadership's commitment to the vicious austerity > program being imposed on the Greek people. (Whatever their origins in > the workers' movement, PASOK and the social democratic parties in > Europe and elsewhere now represent the liberal wing of the capitalist > class in much the same manner as the Democratic Party in the States, > and your analysis of the DP's internal dynamics is also applicable in > their case.)
The Democratic Party is not a social democratic party. It is a bourgeois party. Socialists, at least those who take their Marxism seriously, do not take a "tactical" view on such parties. I refer you to Lenin's writings on the Cadet party in Russia. Julio and Marvin are entitled to their own view on the Democrats, but it has more in common with the "Popular Front" turn than anything that classical Marxism believed. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
