Michael Hoover wrote: > > > > i'm not one to reject elections outright (although i've yet to have anyone > direct > me towards electoral road to socialism, and i doubt that anyone can find it, > it's > certainly not around corner, down the street, and turn left...), seems > obvious, > almost painfully so, that working people have to begin running working people > for office, but that's so much easier said than done... michael hoover
Indeed. I do take it as axiomatic that a revolutionary party in the u.s. must also participate in elections at every level -- while at the same time somehow (SOMEHOW!) remembering (i.e., a huge proportion of its individual members remembering) that the electoral activity is subordinate to other forms of mass organization. I too do not think the Green Party went about it in the right way (but don't say that often because I have no better idea just now). Certainly one cannot (as some advocate) build socialist party 'from ground up" (i.e., start with local elections then move up). That tactic dooms one to remain forever within strait jacket (as Michael calls it) of u.s. political system. If electoral work (new party) emerges from a real upsurge of popular mass struggle, that provides at least some hope of subordinating the electoral activity to actual socialist goals rather than just keeping (good) people in an office here and an office there. Those good people, when electoral work dominates, become 'good' people, who will endlessly remind their comrades that to do anything one must first win the election. Hah! Carrol
