On 2012-11-13, at 11:05 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > The fact that some progressives become disgusted with organizations > such as PASOK and so leave is different from an "inside" strategy. > Rather, it's a matter of people coming to more complete consciousness > of what's going on and realizing that being inside the party was a > mistake. A true "inside" strategy, in contrast, would involve people > who already know about the nature of PASOK and the like deciding to > join anyway and then "bore from within" in an effort to transform it. > (BTW & FWIW, this was the late Michael Harrington's strategy as part > of the SP-USA and then the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee: > he wanted to "realign" the DP, making it more like a social-democratic > party.) Usually true "inside" strategies involve publicly muting > criticism of the party that's being bored into and its leaders. It > also happens that the "borers from within" are expelled if the party's > leadership sees them as actually being able to transform it.
I don't disagree. Entryism hasn't worked. But the opponents of entryism have nothing to show for their efforts either. The DP and the social democratic parties have been able to easily withstand challenges from within and without, even in the face of serious economic and political crises - so far. That is a function of historical circumstance. I expect that, given a crisis on the same scale as the one in Greece, you'd see a similar political polarization in the US. Of course, I have no way of knowing, but in addition to the growth of presently irrelevant far left groups, I'd also expect to see the rapid development of an organized left wing in the DP in sharp conflict with the leadership which would ultimately split and participate in the formation of a viable third party like Syriza. > >> As someone with first hand knowledge of the Cuban Revolution, I was >> expecting you would also cite Fidel's early political activity within the >> bourgeois Partido Orthodoxo prior to the Batista dictatorship which did not >> preclude he and other young activists from later converging with Marxists >> formerly active in the Cuban CP and other small left wing groups to form the >> July 26 movement.< > > Was Fidel Castro a socialist or a revolutionary when he worked with > the Orthodoxos? or was he more like the above-mentioned refugees from > the PASOK, developing his ideas partly in response to the problems of > working within that party? That's been the subject of much speculation and debate. Julio and others would be in a better position to comment. My own sense is that he was already Marxist or very sympathetic to Marxism when he was in the student movement and Orthodox Party. In any case, even if wasn't then a Marxist, he would have developed his ideas not only in response to the problems of working within that party, but further under the Batista dictatorship which put an end to these activities and forced militants like Castro underground, and still further in the early days of the Cuban Revolution and its confrontation with US imperialism. On the larger point, I would say that all socialists and revolutionaries develop their ideas in response to the circumstances they confront - whether they choose to work inside or outside a party which commands the allegiance of the organized working class and its allies. Political radicalization is a process in all cases, as we both understand. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
